A recent press release by the Swanton Education Association has caused some concern in our community. This is just a quick post to let anyone who might actually be reading items on this blog (?!) know that negotiations are continuing with the SEA, with the next meeting scheduled for next week.
For those who would like to see the actual salary rates in place currently at Swanton, you may go to the National Education Association website, where a spreadsheet of salary information was created using 2007-2008 information, and compiled in February 2008. You can be confident that the numbers are current. The link to the Ohio page is here. Teacher salaries are a matter of public record, which makes it easy to verify the statements made by either the Board of Education or the SEA.
The Board is holding a special meeting next Monday night to discuss negotiations.
Please feel free to contact any one of us if you have questions, concerns, or ideas. This district works best when we all work as a team!
Friday, August 22, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Truth or Rhetoric?
This morning I received a copy of a flyer that was prepared by the Swanton Education Association (translation: our teachers' union) and distributed by teacher volunteers to people who came to the Open House sessions last night at Park and Crestwood schools. It makes some pretty strong statements against the Board of Education. Are these statements true? Is it worth our effort to examine them? I think we should take a closer look at what is printed on this flyer, because it is common for false or skewed perceptions to be taken as fact, with the result that the perception becomes "truth" to those who hold that false perception.
So let's look more closely at what is printed on this flyer, and let's take the statements and claims one at a time.
1st statement: Swanton teachers are in favor of restoring programs within the school district, like a drug education program and the Honors program.
Response: Those of you who read our first Board newsletter are already familiar with high school principal Steve Gfell's approach to improving our high school curriculum, and the sound reasoning behind it. In addition, this school district has several drug, alcohol, and tobacco education programs already in place - for example, we have partnered with the SACC in establishing the SEED (Students Encouraging Educated Decisions) program, and some of our other programs begin as early as grade school, such as the D.A.R.E. program. There are other things in progress to help our kids in these areas as well. One successful program from years back (our Youth-to-Youth program) is in the planning stages for a return performance, although all of the details have not been finalized as of this writing.
2nd statement: As a result of practices currently in place, including failure to offer and support solid programs to prepare students for college . . .
Response: Our high school curriculum is the best ever, with the changes implemented by Mr Gfell. He would welcome any resident to call and talk with him about it - please feel free to do so!
3rd statement: . . . unusual hiring practices . . .
Response: The SEA was involved with all of our hiring of administrators, etc. so I'm unsure to what they refer here.
4th statement: . . . failure to support community-led efforts to improve the safety and well-being of your children . . .
Response: hmmm .... Again, it's not clear to what they are referring, but if it's the most recent grant from the Department of Education that we rejected, our residents know full well why we turned that particular grant down. The refusal of one grant certainly does not diminish in any way all of the other things we do in support of our kids!
5th statement: . . . many students leave the area for other schools, and experienced teachers are leaving for other school districts where they can get better pay and benefits.
Response: Wow! There's a mouthful! We did have 2 teachers leave our district to work closer to where they currently live. I honestly do not know what their new wage and benefit package contains, although they would be hard pressed to beat the health insurance plan we have in our district. One of our new teachers left a teaching job in another district to teach in our district because it is closer to his home. As to students 'leaving the area for other schools, I would be interested in the research behind this statement. We have many kids who choose Penta for the last part of their high school years, which is a great option for those who want it. We have kids who live in our district who attend private school or are home-schooled. All districts have these situations.
6th statement: The Swanton Education Association has been bargaining with the school board since April to reach a fair settlement in contract negotiations, but there has been little progress.
Response: That there has been little progress is a TRUE statement. Unfortunately, the SEA set their demands in stone and have refused to budge. Last Friday, we requested that they take our offer to their members for consideration - they refused to do so. With the nature of union negotiations being what they are, I am not at liberty to give any details - but if anyone reading this is a teacher, I urge you to ask your SEA representatives for the facts and numbers. They represent YOU as a teacher, and you have the right to ask them these things. Find out what they are demanding on your behalf.
7th statement: There is money available for a fair settlement, but we see this refusal to be reasonable as just another example of the school board's failure to understand and serve the needs of its community.
Response: Well, I guess it depends on what your definition of "fair" happens to be, right? We have offered a fair settlement in our opinion, but it is not what the SEA has demanded. Again - if you are a teacher, ask your representatives for the details.
8th statement: Just like you have been given many false promises by the school board, so too have the teachers been promised a return to levels and standards set years ago and have not managed to get anything fair in return for their hard work and sacrifice.
Response: Does anyone know what promises they're talking about? I have no idea what prior boards may or may not have 'promised' - but this board has only pledged to reduce the income tax, and that's what we are doing with the levy in November. As to 'returning to levels' from years ago, I sure hope they aren't talking about going back to the fiscal irresponsibility of the past, because this district got itself into serious financial difficulties years ago, and nobody is interested in doing that again! And, again - how do they define, "fair" ? I am hard pressed to figure out what they're angry about!
9th statement: . . . contact your board members and ask them to settle the contract quickly
Response: Please feel free to contact your board members with any question or concern you may have about the district. We welcome your input and participation toward the goal of giving our kids the best educational tools they need to succeed as productive adults in our society.
As to settling the teachers' contract, it takes 2 to tango! The Board cannot force the SEA to accept our offer, no matter how good it is. At the very least, we wish they would take our offer to their membership for a vote - but, thus far, they have refused to do so. Please do not hesitate to let either group - the Board of Education or the SEA - know your views on the matter!
(Oh - one more thing. As you read of the SEA statements that "a unanimous vote" has been taken, please understand that doesn't automatically mean that all teachers were in attendance to vote. A mere 5 people, all voting the same, could qualify as "a unanimous vote" - but clearly it would not reflect the sentiments of the entire teaching staff . . . just something to remember!)
So let's look more closely at what is printed on this flyer, and let's take the statements and claims one at a time.
1st statement: Swanton teachers are in favor of restoring programs within the school district, like a drug education program and the Honors program.
Response: Those of you who read our first Board newsletter are already familiar with high school principal Steve Gfell's approach to improving our high school curriculum, and the sound reasoning behind it. In addition, this school district has several drug, alcohol, and tobacco education programs already in place - for example, we have partnered with the SACC in establishing the SEED (Students Encouraging Educated Decisions) program, and some of our other programs begin as early as grade school, such as the D.A.R.E. program. There are other things in progress to help our kids in these areas as well. One successful program from years back (our Youth-to-Youth program) is in the planning stages for a return performance, although all of the details have not been finalized as of this writing.
2nd statement: As a result of practices currently in place, including failure to offer and support solid programs to prepare students for college . . .
Response: Our high school curriculum is the best ever, with the changes implemented by Mr Gfell. He would welcome any resident to call and talk with him about it - please feel free to do so!
3rd statement: . . . unusual hiring practices . . .
Response: The SEA was involved with all of our hiring of administrators, etc. so I'm unsure to what they refer here.
4th statement: . . . failure to support community-led efforts to improve the safety and well-being of your children . . .
Response: hmmm .... Again, it's not clear to what they are referring, but if it's the most recent grant from the Department of Education that we rejected, our residents know full well why we turned that particular grant down. The refusal of one grant certainly does not diminish in any way all of the other things we do in support of our kids!
5th statement: . . . many students leave the area for other schools, and experienced teachers are leaving for other school districts where they can get better pay and benefits.
Response: Wow! There's a mouthful! We did have 2 teachers leave our district to work closer to where they currently live. I honestly do not know what their new wage and benefit package contains, although they would be hard pressed to beat the health insurance plan we have in our district. One of our new teachers left a teaching job in another district to teach in our district because it is closer to his home. As to students 'leaving the area for other schools, I would be interested in the research behind this statement. We have many kids who choose Penta for the last part of their high school years, which is a great option for those who want it. We have kids who live in our district who attend private school or are home-schooled. All districts have these situations.
6th statement: The Swanton Education Association has been bargaining with the school board since April to reach a fair settlement in contract negotiations, but there has been little progress.
Response: That there has been little progress is a TRUE statement. Unfortunately, the SEA set their demands in stone and have refused to budge. Last Friday, we requested that they take our offer to their members for consideration - they refused to do so. With the nature of union negotiations being what they are, I am not at liberty to give any details - but if anyone reading this is a teacher, I urge you to ask your SEA representatives for the facts and numbers. They represent YOU as a teacher, and you have the right to ask them these things. Find out what they are demanding on your behalf.
7th statement: There is money available for a fair settlement, but we see this refusal to be reasonable as just another example of the school board's failure to understand and serve the needs of its community.
Response: Well, I guess it depends on what your definition of "fair" happens to be, right? We have offered a fair settlement in our opinion, but it is not what the SEA has demanded. Again - if you are a teacher, ask your representatives for the details.
8th statement: Just like you have been given many false promises by the school board, so too have the teachers been promised a return to levels and standards set years ago and have not managed to get anything fair in return for their hard work and sacrifice.
Response: Does anyone know what promises they're talking about? I have no idea what prior boards may or may not have 'promised' - but this board has only pledged to reduce the income tax, and that's what we are doing with the levy in November. As to 'returning to levels' from years ago, I sure hope they aren't talking about going back to the fiscal irresponsibility of the past, because this district got itself into serious financial difficulties years ago, and nobody is interested in doing that again! And, again - how do they define, "fair" ? I am hard pressed to figure out what they're angry about!
9th statement: . . . contact your board members and ask them to settle the contract quickly
Response: Please feel free to contact your board members with any question or concern you may have about the district. We welcome your input and participation toward the goal of giving our kids the best educational tools they need to succeed as productive adults in our society.
As to settling the teachers' contract, it takes 2 to tango! The Board cannot force the SEA to accept our offer, no matter how good it is. At the very least, we wish they would take our offer to their membership for a vote - but, thus far, they have refused to do so. Please do not hesitate to let either group - the Board of Education or the SEA - know your views on the matter!
(Oh - one more thing. As you read of the SEA statements that "a unanimous vote" has been taken, please understand that doesn't automatically mean that all teachers were in attendance to vote. A mere 5 people, all voting the same, could qualify as "a unanimous vote" - but clearly it would not reflect the sentiments of the entire teaching staff . . . just something to remember!)
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Major Board Decisions
Our August 12th board meeting had two significant items above and beyond the usual. The first was a decision on whether or not to accept a grant from the U.S. Department of Education in the amount of $511,000 over 3 years. This grant held a stated purpose of reducing alcohol consumption in our student body.
No doubt you've heard about this one.
The grant was written by the Swanton Area Community Coalition (SACC), headed up by Neil Toeppe, and including other well-known community persons such as Village Administrator Jon Gochenour, Judge Colin McQuade (past SACC president), Deacon Dzierzawski (Village Council and CEO Community Partnership), Heather Wegener (executive director SACC, and wife of Deacon), and Glen Dominique, among others. Initially, the grant called for $191,625 annually but the feds reduced the administrative costs and brought the annual amount down to $170,525 - which is still a chunk of change. Mr. Dzierzawski tells me that former Swanton school superintendent, Neil Weber, affixed his signature on the initial filing documents.
I was quite surprised to hear Mr. Toeppe state in our meeting that the grant itself had been written in February! This was surprising because it was not seen by any board members until a mere day and a half before a critical deadline with the Dept. of Ed. (back in April) when no one had time to go through the 100 or so pages of verbiage to see exactly how it was laid out. With any grant, there are multiple deadlines to meet for various pieces of the process. (The initial filing on behalf of the district was, indeed, in February 2008).
Anyway, after a weekend media frenzy initiated by Mr. Toeppe's press release, he was given another opportunity to speak to the Board in our public meeting. President Dennis Heban told everyone present that our policy is to allow individuals of the public to speak for 5 minutes, with an additional 3 minutes to respond to questions or comments. Mr. Toeppe took twice that long to read his address to those in attendance.
That is what the public was able to witness. What no one had seen was the past few weeks of the board finally being able to read through the grant - and immediately seeing the disturbing allocation of funds. Here is what the grant summary page stated (remember, these are annual amounts):
Travel & Mileage Expenses: $14,412
Supplies (for the kids): $ 4,705
(including videos, workbooks, etc)
Contractural Payments to SACC: $85,920
(this included salary for full time Community Organizer @$18/hr, salary for part time Administrator @$18/hr, computers/desks/cabinets)
Project Director (for 50% effort): $30,000
Training for health teachers: $ 6,500
Substitute teachers $3,495
(this is for when the regular teachers are out for training)
Annual evaluation fee: $30,000
(this was written for the Community Partnership - originally it had $40,000 in that column, but the Dept of Ed reduced it)
Other Admin. Costs: $6,593
If you'd like to read the summary page for yourself, here is a link to a pdf file: Click Here
That is a seriously simplified overview of the entire grant, but you get the general idea.
So after Mr. Toeppe gave his final speech at the board meeting, we held our vote, and it was a unanimous rejection of this grant. A statement was subsequently read by Superintendent Paulette Baz, giving our position on the issue. And the TV cameramen packed up and left.
The SACC and Community Coalition have initiated other positive things for our kids - the SEED program comes to mind. The school district has other programs in place as well, with the same goal: to educate our kids about the dangers of alcohol and other substance abuse and minimize or eliminate their participation in them.
This particular grant was simply not an appropriate expenditure of tax money, in the opinion of the Board. However, that does not mean that ALL grants are inappropriate, and I'm certain the SACC and Community Coalition will be able to find other grants available that will allow us to continue our partnership in doing all we can to assist our children in making good choices.
The other major item before us last night was a request from the Swanton Public Library to place a 0.5 mil operating levy on the ballot this November. They were chartered under the school system decades ago - in 1935 - and thus need to go through us to place a levy up, even though their funding does not flow through our books.
Their last levy was for permanent improvement, and actually collected more than expected. The BOE was able to give them a little over $67,000 last month - money that had collected under their levy, but had not yet been issued to them due to oddities in state law. Thankfully, Cheryl Swisher was able to find a legal way to get them their money! Hooray!!
We have a GREAT library in Swanton! I know with the state decreasing the funds libraries have been receiving, cutbacks in hours and services have been initiated in Swanton to try and stay afloat. I honestly do not know how their books look, as no financial statements were provided to board members. (no doubt we could get them if we asked) The library board has wrestled with the situation, and came to the decision that an operating levy is necessary.
The awkward thing is that the library is tied to our school district which happens to be in two separate counties - Lucas and Fulton. Lucas County residents already pay taxes to that county's public library system. A tax on the entire school district for the Swanton Public Library would effectively have Lucas Co. residents paying tax to 2 library districts. It's a tough sell to many of those residents.
You would think there would be a way to either exempt those Lucas Co. people in the Swanton school district from Lucas Co. library taxes, OR somehow have those taxes collected turned over to Swanton. Ah - wishful thinking!
The vote from the BOE passed - so there will be a library levy on the ballot this November. I think we were told that it would cost a homeowner around $15 per $100,00 of property value, and should generate slightly over $100,000 annually for the library for each year it is in effect.
Now we look forward to the start of the school year!
No doubt you've heard about this one.
The grant was written by the Swanton Area Community Coalition (SACC), headed up by Neil Toeppe, and including other well-known community persons such as Village Administrator Jon Gochenour, Judge Colin McQuade (past SACC president), Deacon Dzierzawski (Village Council and CEO Community Partnership), Heather Wegener (executive director SACC, and wife of Deacon), and Glen Dominique, among others. Initially, the grant called for $191,625 annually but the feds reduced the administrative costs and brought the annual amount down to $170,525 - which is still a chunk of change. Mr. Dzierzawski tells me that former Swanton school superintendent, Neil Weber, affixed his signature on the initial filing documents.
I was quite surprised to hear Mr. Toeppe state in our meeting that the grant itself had been written in February! This was surprising because it was not seen by any board members until a mere day and a half before a critical deadline with the Dept. of Ed. (back in April) when no one had time to go through the 100 or so pages of verbiage to see exactly how it was laid out. With any grant, there are multiple deadlines to meet for various pieces of the process. (The initial filing on behalf of the district was, indeed, in February 2008).
Anyway, after a weekend media frenzy initiated by Mr. Toeppe's press release, he was given another opportunity to speak to the Board in our public meeting. President Dennis Heban told everyone present that our policy is to allow individuals of the public to speak for 5 minutes, with an additional 3 minutes to respond to questions or comments. Mr. Toeppe took twice that long to read his address to those in attendance.
That is what the public was able to witness. What no one had seen was the past few weeks of the board finally being able to read through the grant - and immediately seeing the disturbing allocation of funds. Here is what the grant summary page stated (remember, these are annual amounts):
Travel & Mileage Expenses: $14,412
Supplies (for the kids): $ 4,705
(including videos, workbooks, etc)
Contractural Payments to SACC: $85,920
(this included salary for full time Community Organizer @$18/hr, salary for part time Administrator @$18/hr, computers/desks/cabinets)
Project Director (for 50% effort): $30,000
Training for health teachers: $ 6,500
Substitute teachers $3,495
(this is for when the regular teachers are out for training)
Annual evaluation fee: $30,000
(this was written for the Community Partnership - originally it had $40,000 in that column, but the Dept of Ed reduced it)
Other Admin. Costs: $6,593
If you'd like to read the summary page for yourself, here is a link to a pdf file: Click Here
That is a seriously simplified overview of the entire grant, but you get the general idea.
So after Mr. Toeppe gave his final speech at the board meeting, we held our vote, and it was a unanimous rejection of this grant. A statement was subsequently read by Superintendent Paulette Baz, giving our position on the issue. And the TV cameramen packed up and left.
The SACC and Community Coalition have initiated other positive things for our kids - the SEED program comes to mind. The school district has other programs in place as well, with the same goal: to educate our kids about the dangers of alcohol and other substance abuse and minimize or eliminate their participation in them.
This particular grant was simply not an appropriate expenditure of tax money, in the opinion of the Board. However, that does not mean that ALL grants are inappropriate, and I'm certain the SACC and Community Coalition will be able to find other grants available that will allow us to continue our partnership in doing all we can to assist our children in making good choices.
The other major item before us last night was a request from the Swanton Public Library to place a 0.5 mil operating levy on the ballot this November. They were chartered under the school system decades ago - in 1935 - and thus need to go through us to place a levy up, even though their funding does not flow through our books.
Their last levy was for permanent improvement, and actually collected more than expected. The BOE was able to give them a little over $67,000 last month - money that had collected under their levy, but had not yet been issued to them due to oddities in state law. Thankfully, Cheryl Swisher was able to find a legal way to get them their money! Hooray!!
We have a GREAT library in Swanton! I know with the state decreasing the funds libraries have been receiving, cutbacks in hours and services have been initiated in Swanton to try and stay afloat. I honestly do not know how their books look, as no financial statements were provided to board members. (no doubt we could get them if we asked) The library board has wrestled with the situation, and came to the decision that an operating levy is necessary.
The awkward thing is that the library is tied to our school district which happens to be in two separate counties - Lucas and Fulton. Lucas County residents already pay taxes to that county's public library system. A tax on the entire school district for the Swanton Public Library would effectively have Lucas Co. residents paying tax to 2 library districts. It's a tough sell to many of those residents.
You would think there would be a way to either exempt those Lucas Co. people in the Swanton school district from Lucas Co. library taxes, OR somehow have those taxes collected turned over to Swanton. Ah - wishful thinking!
The vote from the BOE passed - so there will be a library levy on the ballot this November. I think we were told that it would cost a homeowner around $15 per $100,00 of property value, and should generate slightly over $100,000 annually for the library for each year it is in effect.
Now we look forward to the start of the school year!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Tax REDUCTION!
Yup - you read that right: the Swanton School Board is going to reduce school taxes for their district. The Fulton Co. auditor's office was in shock - no district in their experience has ever done such a thing!
The current income tax on Swanton school district residents is 1.25%, and it will continue to collect at that rate for another year. After lengthy discussions with our school treasurer, Cheryl Swisher, and careful forecasting, the Board is confident that we can LOWER that rate to 0.75% for our residents and still run the school efficiently and well.
Woo-hoo!!
The levy for the reduced rate will be on the ballot in November. Tell your friends!
Not only that - but the Board has also decided to allow the current permanent improvement levy to expire, and will NOT be placing it on the ballot for renewal. Instead, we will move 1 mil of inside millage to Permanent Improvement to care for the physical structures of our four schools. Although the individual savings will seem small, this combined with the reduction of the income tax level should greatly help our residents during these financially stressful times.
Woo-hoo again!!
We should remember that one of the reasons we are able to do these reductions is because the Board is now truly able to "see" where the district stands, financially, because our treasurer is very very good at what she does. I'm told she inherited a confused mess when she came on board, four to five years ago now, but she has turned that around. We just couldn't do these things for our residents if it weren't for Cheryl's quality management of our district funds.
One thing we are looking at now is how we can get that new Middle School built. You may remember that we were told some years ago by prominent residents, the superintendent and board members of that year that we would be able to get "2 for 1" when the district was working on getting a new high school. Now - as you can clearly see - we did NOT get "2 for 1" at all. So Cheryl is in contact with the state, our attorneys, and the auditor's office to see how that Middle School might be realized. That would be awesome!
I'll keep you posted as this is investigated. It is painfully obvious that our Middle School is in dire straits - and that was before the roof leak and mold was discovered in the old building. (altho they believe they have it contained, and that none reached the newer part of the building that is currently used)
I can't emphasize enough that this current school board is doing its best to do what is right for our students and what is right for our residents - even to the point of lowering the income tax rate. We study these issues - we consider them very carefully, and hammer them out over months of intense deliberations. It is not a flippant nor easy task at all. But each of us honestly cares about our district and wants to do what is in the best interest of ALL, even if that means we are unpopular with a few.
So the next time you see a school board member, shake his or her hand and thank them for their efforts on your behalf. It would mean a lot.
The current income tax on Swanton school district residents is 1.25%, and it will continue to collect at that rate for another year. After lengthy discussions with our school treasurer, Cheryl Swisher, and careful forecasting, the Board is confident that we can LOWER that rate to 0.75% for our residents and still run the school efficiently and well.
Woo-hoo!!
The levy for the reduced rate will be on the ballot in November. Tell your friends!
Not only that - but the Board has also decided to allow the current permanent improvement levy to expire, and will NOT be placing it on the ballot for renewal. Instead, we will move 1 mil of inside millage to Permanent Improvement to care for the physical structures of our four schools. Although the individual savings will seem small, this combined with the reduction of the income tax level should greatly help our residents during these financially stressful times.
Woo-hoo again!!
We should remember that one of the reasons we are able to do these reductions is because the Board is now truly able to "see" where the district stands, financially, because our treasurer is very very good at what she does. I'm told she inherited a confused mess when she came on board, four to five years ago now, but she has turned that around. We just couldn't do these things for our residents if it weren't for Cheryl's quality management of our district funds.
One thing we are looking at now is how we can get that new Middle School built. You may remember that we were told some years ago by prominent residents, the superintendent and board members of that year that we would be able to get "2 for 1" when the district was working on getting a new high school. Now - as you can clearly see - we did NOT get "2 for 1" at all. So Cheryl is in contact with the state, our attorneys, and the auditor's office to see how that Middle School might be realized. That would be awesome!
I'll keep you posted as this is investigated. It is painfully obvious that our Middle School is in dire straits - and that was before the roof leak and mold was discovered in the old building. (altho they believe they have it contained, and that none reached the newer part of the building that is currently used)
I can't emphasize enough that this current school board is doing its best to do what is right for our students and what is right for our residents - even to the point of lowering the income tax rate. We study these issues - we consider them very carefully, and hammer them out over months of intense deliberations. It is not a flippant nor easy task at all. But each of us honestly cares about our district and wants to do what is in the best interest of ALL, even if that means we are unpopular with a few.
So the next time you see a school board member, shake his or her hand and thank them for their efforts on your behalf. It would mean a lot.
Friday, June 27, 2008
June Progress
The June meeting of the BOE ended with some positive steps "forward", in my opinion.
Angela Lutz was hired to replace retiring Linda Reeves at Crestwood. All of our retiring staff were honored that evening as well. I will especially miss Carolyn Short, who was the principal at Park School where I was able to volunteer my Friday mornings in the library.
One critical position that needs to be filled is that of someone to head up our cafeterias. Know anyone with experience who might be interested? If so, let Paulette Baz know right away! Other positions are also advertised, and interviews are continuing.
The board approved having our treasurer take the next step in our plan to place a reduced income tax levy on the November ballot. The current levy collects at 1.25% - our proposal is to lower it to 0.75%.
We also had further discussion about allowing the current Permanent Improvement levy roll off, and instead moving inside millage to PI in its place. This would result in a decrease in property taxes for our residents. No vote was taken on this issue that night.
A new board newsletter was approved, and will go to print this week. We hope to improve communications with all of our residents on district issues, and this newsletter will be a good start. I did notice, however, that Dennis Heban edited his original article and removed all reference to a blog. . . not sure why. Maybe his statement that we plan to update the website was thought to encompass the addition of a blog. We'll see!
You should be getting your copy soon, so let us know what you think - good, bad, or indifferent. We can't improve something if we don't know what needs attention, and we are relying on YOU to help us!
Angela Lutz was hired to replace retiring Linda Reeves at Crestwood. All of our retiring staff were honored that evening as well. I will especially miss Carolyn Short, who was the principal at Park School where I was able to volunteer my Friday mornings in the library.
One critical position that needs to be filled is that of someone to head up our cafeterias. Know anyone with experience who might be interested? If so, let Paulette Baz know right away! Other positions are also advertised, and interviews are continuing.
The board approved having our treasurer take the next step in our plan to place a reduced income tax levy on the November ballot. The current levy collects at 1.25% - our proposal is to lower it to 0.75%.
We also had further discussion about allowing the current Permanent Improvement levy roll off, and instead moving inside millage to PI in its place. This would result in a decrease in property taxes for our residents. No vote was taken on this issue that night.
A new board newsletter was approved, and will go to print this week. We hope to improve communications with all of our residents on district issues, and this newsletter will be a good start. I did notice, however, that Dennis Heban edited his original article and removed all reference to a blog. . . not sure why. Maybe his statement that we plan to update the website was thought to encompass the addition of a blog. We'll see!
You should be getting your copy soon, so let us know what you think - good, bad, or indifferent. We can't improve something if we don't know what needs attention, and we are relying on YOU to help us!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
