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.

"Your mission, should you decide to accept..."

That lead-in to the old Mission Impossible television show came to mind as I pondered today's Village Buzz topic possibilities.

I take some of our elected representatives to task now and then, and some of you readers do the same in your comments.  Maybe it is time for us to "put up or shut up" as the old saying goes (not really but it gets the point across).  If we have ideas as to how our governing entities could do things differently, lets put those on the table and see if any grow legs.

For example, we see privatized prisons popping up around the country.  That happened because the private sector found a use for capital that took a burden from the shoulders of the taxpayer.  I read of the latest Scott Walker budget proposals for Milwaukee County and thought that he has to be among the most creative politicians I've seen in some time (and, I hope he runs for Governor again).

What is there in our small world that could be done differently if we were to 'color outside the lines' for awhile?  At the risk of angering entrenched interests, I'll throw out a few thoughts along those lines (remember that there may be some current impediments but that most impediments are man-made and could be altered if we demanded that):

Why not look to the private sector to build a school building that we can lease?  The lessor could be obligated to handle all repairs, for example, over the term of the lease to assure that things that break get fixed on a timely basis instead of being delayed until they manifest as something worse.  I see many former hospitals that have been turned into apartment buildings, for example.  Just because a building is built to house students, doesn't have to mean that it would always be a school building.  As population ebbs and flows, this would give the taxpayer some welcomed flexibility.  Would this be workable?  We won't know unless we ask the questions.

What about a charter school or an Internet school option to take student-count pressure off the buildings now available?  Might that also reduce the personnel costs? 

Many communities have hired assessor organizations and building inspector organizations to do their specialized work instead of retaining this talent on their own payrolls.  Why not go through an extensive review of what we could do along those lines.  That might reduce costs.  It might eliminate our angst over rising benefit costs that have been negotiated and about which we can do nothing even as we watch the private sector deal with those same issues.  Current employees with those skills might welcome the opportunity to become entrepreneurs and build new companies that other communities could employ.

Would it be possible to contract for road repair and shift some of the uncertainties off onto a private sector entity?  Private business is accustomed to taking risk.  Government tends to have to avoid risk and that adds expense.  Road salting and snow plowing, for example, is a real problem given a hard winter and higher salt costs.  If a private firm were contracted, it would bear that risk.  I see many landscape firms that become snow plowers and salters in the winter.  Is that worth exploring?

Would it make sense to lease computer servers for the village's use and have those housed in a private data center that does that as its primary business?  The village wouldn't have need for the IT skills that it might today.  Leasing of such systems might prove more economical and is an expense for which we could plan.

In most of these examples, the private sector would probably be more efficient, less susceptible to the political winds that blow hot and then cold, more intent on running very tightly controlled operations, etc.  Where there is a true risk/reward relationship that is properly negotiated and vetted, I believe that the private sector is simply better at that than is a government body.  And, as the "sidewalk" issue shows, I feel certain that the private sector can get things done in shorter time periods in most cases.

"Your mission, should you decide to accept" is to come up with your own ideas that might be capable of altering the way we look at the world of Germantown government and the Germantown school system today.  I look forward to your comments...if you are brave enough/foolish enough to offer those.  Most of you, at least, have anonymity on your side.  I'm just hanging out there with my zipper down.

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 ;>)

School District Referenda...

District residents will have the opportunity to make their wishes known with the news that two referenda items will appear on the local ballots.  The votes were unanimous with one member, Bruce Warnimont, absent from the special meeting.

The first item will see the question concerning approval of borrowing $22.5M to support the building of a new elementary school building for approximately $17.5M while using the balance for security and plant upgrades at the other existing school buildings.  The Journal Sentinel story this morning stated the cost to a homeowner with a $200,000 home would amount to about $74 per year.

The second item is the question concerning the district being authorized to borrow $500,000 for current operating expenses in excess of the current revenue cap.  That same homeowner would see this item add some $30 per year to the property tax bill.

Business Manager Ric Ericksen was quoted as saying that these costs would drop after existing debt is paid off in 2012.

Yesterday's Blog on this subject saw a healthy exchange of ideas and information amongst readers.  I hope we might see that exchange continue.

Knodl Konundrum...

I missed my guess on this item; I expected it to die down after a couple of days.  But, it seems this story has grown some fairly strong legs.

That has no doubt been caused by the original complaint filing by the Menomonee Falls resident, a letter from Jason LaSage to Dan Knodl that found its way into the Journal Sentinel story this morning...and some relatively questionable handling by Knodl himself.

Radio talk shows have continued to discuss this situation and reporters have obviously decided it has some continuing merit.

And, the longer this goes on, the more I begin to wonder if there isn't something more here than I originally felt to be the case.

The initial response from Knodl seemed plausible.  The subsequent statements that differ a bit from that original explanation raise some further questions...simply because the explanation has changed.  I hope the investigation by the Ozaukee County DA will be conducted promptly and that this can be put to rest so that it doesn't cloud the November election anymore than the facts, once exposed, justify.

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.

Special Board Meeting Follow-Up...

The special board meeting to be convened at 5:30PM tonight deals, in part, with the Waste Management strike and garbage pick-up delays.  I received an email from President Kempinski over the week-end discussing my Village Buzz piece of late last week.

He indicated that the Waste Management topic had been added to the special meeting agenda to "keep the Board apprised as to the status of collection, and determine if the Board wishes to change companies should the company fall even further behind".  He went on to state that he didn't want to change companies but that he felt compelled to explore alternatives in case service should drop to even lower levels.

I had indicated that our personal experience was that Friday's pick-up was made on Friday.  He mentioned that the village had received calls indicating that pick-ups had been delayed two days in some instances.

President Kempinski also discussed the eventuality of switching to Veolia if Waste Management's service degraded to the point where that would be necessary.  His reasoning seemed to be that, if this went on for some time, and if many communities had similar experiences, there could be a wholesale departure from Waste Management that would overwhelm Veolia's capabilities.

He believes that, if Veolia comes back to the village indicating that it would be willing to accept the terms of the Waste Management agreement, the Board would be willing to switch.

A couple of thoughts come to mind:

If the current agreement has a five-day clause and if Waste Management continues to pick up garbage within that time span, does the village have any real recourse?

Even if there is a wholesale move away from Waste Management, maybe Germantown would, by staying with Waste Management after some agreement renegotiation actually see improved service since Waste Management would have less business and would likely be trying very diligently to repair the image damage it would've suffered.

I'll report on the discussion from today's special meeting in a 'Village Buzz' item tomorrow, if not before.

~~~~~~~~~~

School District Budget Deliberations...

An earlier segment on the current budget debate within the Germantown School District referred to some debate as to the size and configuration of the budget for the coming year.

It appears that this debate continues and centers on the draft prepared by the Administration which does not yet meet the constraints that at least some Board members feel necessary.  A target amount of $39,495,814 had been established last spring.  The administration has continued to stand behind a proposed budget that is some $650,000 higher.

Obviously, the school district has a relatively new business manager although he did have experience gained as a member of the school board when assuming that position.  There was over-spending in several accounts that were discretionary in nature as opposed to accounts that are relatively 'locked in'.  This apparently has caused some concern as to fiscal constraint. 

We also have a new superintendent who certainly has been working hard to learn his new district's idiosyncrasies and needs while also working to build his board and staff relationships.  That may be at work to some degree but it seems that staff would be anxious to follow its new leader rather than 'stand in the doorway'.

I suppose that staff might be expected to seek more money than the board is willing to provide, but, at some point, posturing has to give ground to reality.

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? 

Proposed School District Budget...

I received an email from School Board Director Bruce Warnimont today with a link to the "work in progress" budget for 2008/2009.  He was careful to point out that the Board has not yet vetted it.  The Finance Committee meets this coming Monday night and it is likely that the budget will be discussed at that meeting.

Comments from the public are viewed as carrying great weight, especially in these formative stages.  Warnimont pointed out, for example, that "Fund 41", in school accounting jargon, is the area where all the larger physical improvement/repair projects get funded.  This is also unique in that this fund's size is established by District residents by direct vote at the Annual Meeting in October.  Once that amount has been set, the Board has no power to alter the appropriation.  While it tends to defy logic, an increase in this fund  does not necessarily mean higher tax rates.  The additional funding, if approved, would come from another area within the budget.

The upshot is this:  If you have some thoughts about things that need to be improved or repaired in the coming year, this is the time to make those thoughts known in person.

I have not had time to review the information found by clicking this link, but want to get it into your hands, if you desire to review it, as soon as possible.

I can tell you that Warnimont doesn't sound too enthusiastic about this draft and there may be others with similar thoughts.  I suspect there may be a move to task the administration to review and revise.  If it were to be approved as stands, it would involve an overall tax levy increase of 11% over last year.  That doesn't translate into an 11% property tax increase, incidentally.  It would threaten the trend of school district-related property tax decreases we've seen recently, however.

Board of Education Meeting Review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~~~~~~~~

Tax Knowledge Test Answers:

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

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

 (This courtesy of The Wisconsin Way.)

Test Your Tax Knowledge... 

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

True or False:

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

~~~~~~~~~~

School Board Meeting Tonight...

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

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

~~~~~~~~~~

Sendik's: Beehive of activity...

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

~~~~~~~~~~

Thomas Square Bread Bagels...

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

If you find out, please let me know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.