The school board held two meetings in May. We scheduled a "special meeting" on May 13th to discuss our updated 5 yr. forecast and our regular meeting was on May 19th.
The numbers on our 5 yr. forecast are not good. With the economy in our country and our state going further down, daily, and the unemployment rates and foreclosure rates skyrocketing in our two counties, it is not a pretty picture. Estimates for next year on foreclosures are worse than this year.
Our Treasurer, Cheryl Swisher, gave all in attendance a copy of the current spreadsheet. If you were not there, and would like a copy, please give her a call. Here are the areas you should observe closely:
Line item 4.50 is "Total Expenditures". Did you know that the state requires every school district to have a minimum of 20-25% of this line item held in reserve? When a district's reserve dips below that minimum, it is officially declared to be in "Fiscal Caution". Our district was in this situation a few years ago.
Line item 6.01 is "Excess of Revenue & Other Financing Sources over(under) Expenditures..." and this is the line where you begin to see deficit spending show up. (for those of you without an accounting degree, "deficit spending" is when you are paying out more than you are taking in - kind of what happens to some folks' personal checkbooks from time to time)
Line item 7.02 is "Case Balance June 30". This is where you will see the amounts of our carryover. At the end of fiscal year 2008, our carryover was $7.3 million. Following that line over, you will see how the deficit spending numbers above slowly eat away at the carryover until it disappears completely by 2013.
Without addressing our deficit spending, our district will be in "Fiscal Caution" by fiscal year 2012.
The projected deficit spending amount for fiscal year 2010 is just under $342,000.
The projected deficit spending amount for fiscal year 2011 is slightly over $2 million.
The projected deficit spending amount for fiscal year 2012 is slightly over $3.2 million, and the carryover now shows $2.7 million - less than the 20% of projected expenditures for that fiscal year required by the state (which means we are in "fiscal caution").
The projected deficit spending amount for fiscal year 2013 is almost $4.5 million - and that huge carryover that we had in 2008 is now completely gone, and line 7.02 shows a negative number
( -$1,711,627 to be exact).
Sobering facts.
Thankfully, our levy passed last November so at least we can count on a revenue stream for a few years. Trying to pass a levy in troubled economic times is virtually impossible, as other districts around us who waited are discovering. Of course, our levy can only collect on those who are able to pay - 0% of no income is $0 to the district, just as foreclosure on homes and property means less property tax coming into the district.
The school board looked ahead and recognized that the general election ballot of November 2008 was our best chance of having a levy pass - and it barely squeaked by (losing in Swanton and Swancreek townships and passing in the Village).
Our income is thus set as best it can be - and now our only recourse is to rein in expenses.
Did you realize that the SEA (teachers') contract that was passed last year will cost the district around $800,000 more over the next five years than the contract we originally offered them? (and that amount only gets larger as time goes by)
One of the items on our May 19th agenda was to look at ways to address the projected deficit spending for next year. Superintendent Paulette Baz brought us a long list of proposed cuts in staffing to make up for the projected $342,000 deficit. We spent a l-o-o-o-n-g time in executive session, hammering out what we thought we could cut and still give our kids a good education in the Swanton system.
It was not an easy task.
Some things were beyond our control. For example, classroom enrollment dictates that we remove a kindergarten teacher because the numbers aren't there to allow us to keep her. It is the nature of union contracts to require people with the least amount of seniority to be let go when cuts are made in staffing, no matter how great the new person might be. Now - if our kindergarten enrollment increases this summer to the proper levels, we can hire a kindergarten teacher, but the good one we had to let go might already have another job elsewhere.
How discouraging for new teachers!
We looked at high school staffing levels, custodians, library aides, etc. - nothing was held back as we looked for ways to cut our spending.
Finally, we voted to eliminate the kindergarten position (as described above) and one custodian position. Two other jobs (a library aide and middle school math teacher) will not be replaced when the current holders of these jobs retire/leave.
Eliminating these 4 positions only covers less than half of the projected deficit spending amount, but still saves the elementary PE teacher and does not cause any high school level changes. It does cut down on library time for our elementary kids - unless the regular teachers are willing to take their students to the library themselves. (which they are allowed to do)
As board member Dennins Heban commented, unless our economy makes a dramatic turnaround, the school board will be forced to make further reductions next year to keep the doors open.
Why am I sharing this grim news with you? Because this is an election year - there will be 3 school board positions on the ballot in November. Whoever decides to run for these positions will need a steel spine to make some difficult decisions next year when they take office.
They will also need to have a good grasp of finances and accounting skills. Only a thorough understanding of long-range forecasting will help them make sound financial decisions for the district.
Let's face it. If we can't make these difficult decisions, the state will step in to do it for us. I am certain no one wants that to happen!
We all must work together for the good of our kids' education and the future of our district.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
A Tangled Web
Did you see the article in the Enterprise today about the controversy over rec programs? There are some - ah - interesting quotes by Mr. Gochenour.
In the third paragraph, he is quoted as stating that the school board "decided to unilaterally withdraw" from the former joint park & rec program.
Ah - not quite. Remember: we held several meetings that included 2 Village Council members. The Dec. meeting (which I recorded) had Mike Rochelle stating that the plan we had come up with together needed to move forward, and we all agreed with his statement. This plan included representatives from both the village and the school district. Both he and Pam Moore were pleased with the end result, and were confident that the rest of Council and the Administrator would also be pleased and would want to implement our joint plan.
At a special school board meeting in January, the school board moved forward exactly as we had discussed and planned with those two Council members. We didn't change a thing. Hardly the "unilateral" move as charged by Mr. Gochenour.
Also in that third paragraph, Mr. Gochenour states that there are leases with Corn Fest and Party in the Park every year. What he neglects to mention is that those are one or two day events - and there is no stipulation that village residents get a price break on anything. I believe the appropriate phrase here would be "apples and oranges".
In the seventh paragraph, Gochenour is quoted as saying Council "preferred the framework we had before, where we both had say."
Ah - not quite. In the former situation, the Village handled all items related to the physical parks, and the school district oversaw the sports programs themselves (along with some minor park maintenance, and concessions). The Village has never "had a say" in the recreation programs.
In the twelfth paragraph, there is a statement that the Village's proposed discount for village residents is "not set in stone", but village officials want "some type of discount".
Ah - not quite. At an April 27th meeting with council members Rochelle and Moore, the Mayor and Gochenour, other discount options were mentioned as a discussion item, and were immediately shot down.
On page two where the article continues, in paragraph three Gochenour indicates "a sticking point" on the language of the insurance portion of the proposed lease. I can only assume he did not run the language of the proposed lease past either the village insurance agent nor the village attorney, because no one is able to hold a policy on property they do not own - which is what the Village wanted us to do. Appropriate language was provided by our attorney for insurance purposes, but no one from the Village agreed to the change.
In paragraph seven, Gochenour says he doesn't "understand (our) decision to do what (we) did" but "it's all about the community. That's what (the Village) considers most important".
Ah - not quite. Had that been a true statement, the plan forged together by Council members and school board members would have gone ahead as planned, and we wouldn't be having these articles in the Enterprise or on my blog. Mr. Gochenour would not have refused to give us keys to the buildings where our equipment is stored. He would not have refused to give us keys for the Choir Boosters to run concessions. There are many things that would never have happened, if Mr. Gochenour truly considered our community to be important.
I hope that Mike Rochelle and Pam Moore - the two council members who were fully involved from Day One, and who know the whole truth of this matter - are paying attention to how their Village Administrator is acting and speaking through this situation. Our plan - THEIR plan - could have been humming happily along by now, if it had been allowed to proceed.
Why did it suddenly come to a screeching halt once Mr. Gochenour got involved??
I believe there is still opportunity for Village Council and the school board to work together for the good of our community. But it can only be accomplished if everyone is willing to work together, honestly, as we had begun to do. As Pam stated in that December meeting, "this is a real win-win for everyone!" - and it can be again.
Let's work together !
In the third paragraph, he is quoted as stating that the school board "decided to unilaterally withdraw" from the former joint park & rec program.
Ah - not quite. Remember: we held several meetings that included 2 Village Council members. The Dec. meeting (which I recorded) had Mike Rochelle stating that the plan we had come up with together needed to move forward, and we all agreed with his statement. This plan included representatives from both the village and the school district. Both he and Pam Moore were pleased with the end result, and were confident that the rest of Council and the Administrator would also be pleased and would want to implement our joint plan.
At a special school board meeting in January, the school board moved forward exactly as we had discussed and planned with those two Council members. We didn't change a thing. Hardly the "unilateral" move as charged by Mr. Gochenour.
Also in that third paragraph, Mr. Gochenour states that there are leases with Corn Fest and Party in the Park every year. What he neglects to mention is that those are one or two day events - and there is no stipulation that village residents get a price break on anything. I believe the appropriate phrase here would be "apples and oranges".
In the seventh paragraph, Gochenour is quoted as saying Council "preferred the framework we had before, where we both had say."
Ah - not quite. In the former situation, the Village handled all items related to the physical parks, and the school district oversaw the sports programs themselves (along with some minor park maintenance, and concessions). The Village has never "had a say" in the recreation programs.
In the twelfth paragraph, there is a statement that the Village's proposed discount for village residents is "not set in stone", but village officials want "some type of discount".
Ah - not quite. At an April 27th meeting with council members Rochelle and Moore, the Mayor and Gochenour, other discount options were mentioned as a discussion item, and were immediately shot down.
On page two where the article continues, in paragraph three Gochenour indicates "a sticking point" on the language of the insurance portion of the proposed lease. I can only assume he did not run the language of the proposed lease past either the village insurance agent nor the village attorney, because no one is able to hold a policy on property they do not own - which is what the Village wanted us to do. Appropriate language was provided by our attorney for insurance purposes, but no one from the Village agreed to the change.
In paragraph seven, Gochenour says he doesn't "understand (our) decision to do what (we) did" but "it's all about the community. That's what (the Village) considers most important".
Ah - not quite. Had that been a true statement, the plan forged together by Council members and school board members would have gone ahead as planned, and we wouldn't be having these articles in the Enterprise or on my blog. Mr. Gochenour would not have refused to give us keys to the buildings where our equipment is stored. He would not have refused to give us keys for the Choir Boosters to run concessions. There are many things that would never have happened, if Mr. Gochenour truly considered our community to be important.
I hope that Mike Rochelle and Pam Moore - the two council members who were fully involved from Day One, and who know the whole truth of this matter - are paying attention to how their Village Administrator is acting and speaking through this situation. Our plan - THEIR plan - could have been humming happily along by now, if it had been allowed to proceed.
Why did it suddenly come to a screeching halt once Mr. Gochenour got involved??
I believe there is still opportunity for Village Council and the school board to work together for the good of our community. But it can only be accomplished if everyone is willing to work together, honestly, as we had begun to do. As Pam stated in that December meeting, "this is a real win-win for everyone!" - and it can be again.
Let's work together !
Update on Swanton Rec
There have been a few things happen since my last posting on the newly formed Swanton Recreation Program. The school board placed a paid ad into the Swanton Enterprise and into the Key. Allow me to share a little background information on those ads.
A meeting was scheduled between the village and the school district on Monday, April 27th. In attendance from the village was the Mayor, Village Administrator Jon Gochenour, and council members Mike Rochelle and Pam Moore. Representing the school district was Superintendent Paulette Baz, Treasurer/CFO Cheryl Swisher, and board members Mona Dyke and myself.
Some of the general goals and ideas for the (new) Swanton Rec program were discussed, as none of the village folk had attended our Board meetings and a couple of them mentioned feeling 'out of the loop'. (altho they could have known these things had they attended a board meeting or talked with Mike R. or Pam . . . .)
Anyway, Cheryl reiterated our desire to work amicably with the Village on an agreement that was fair to both sides. We spoke only briefly about the concessions - we explained what our plan had been (to allow the Booster Clubs to do concessions at the games) and Mike Rochelle stated that an ad had been placed (he didn't say where) asking non-profit groups who were interested in running concessions to contact the Village. When asked which non-profits they hoped to have reply, he mentioned the Lion's Club, Rotary, and (drum roll) : the SACC (of which Mr. Gochenour is Treasurer and Village Council member Deacon Dzierzawski is Secretary). We did mention that we had purchased equipment within the buildings that we would want back. There was no response to that statement, either time it was mentioned.
The lion's share of the conversation was concerning their proposed 50% discount to participants who are Village residents. I asked if we might see the lease agreements they had with other sports programs (men's slo-pitch, etc) so that we might compare them with the proposed lease they had prepared for us - and Mike R. said that no other groups had a lease. I said, "then - this is a punitive measure?" and Jon G rolled his eyes.
It was stated by village people several times during our meeting that, as everyone used the parks, it was "not fair" for only village residents to be taxed for the parks. Being a Lucas County resident myself, these statements struck me as odd. Parks are always paid for by taxes on the residents who live there. Rarely, you might find one that has little booth set up to check drivers' licenses to ascertain whether the visitor is a local person or not, with a small fee charged to the non-resident. (I know Olander Park in Sylvania did that for quite a while - maybe still does.)
But -as you all know - the norm is for anyone from anywhere be able to use local parks at various places, while the only people paying for their maintenance etc. are the residents, who do so via specific taxes for that purpose. (Typically, privately owned land is appraised at a higher value when located next to a park or other green space in a municipality - but, I digress . . . )
One of the village representatives stated that the recreation program fees for village participants should be reduced by half because that would make it "fair" for everyone. Several times, they said it shouldn't be "such a big deal", as this was only a small minority of our entire program enrollment, and the difference could easily be made up by raising the program fees on the non-village participants. Mr. Gochenour mentioned the high cost of water and electricity, and how expensive it was to change a lightbulb up at the park and how they had never charged us for any of that before. . .
We went round and round on this issue. There were many "eye rollings" by Mr. Gochenour throughout the course of the 1 1/2 + hour meeting, along with several smirks.
Cheryl again asked, "we need to work together - what will it take for us to get this moving forward?" The Mayor agreed with her that we need to move forward, and leave the past where it is. He also seemed to feel that the Village had been left 'out of the loop' on things. Again - I'm not sure exactly on what, but I mentioned that they had received a personal invitation to our special board meeting where we planned to discuss the program, but no one came. No one responded to my statement.
Pam and Mike mentioned that the fee discount would not be implemented until fall sports - and it was likely that it would not be a requirement in next year's lease.
Do those statements reveal the true purpose of this proposed discount to village residents, that would potentially impact them just in time for the November ballot? hmmmmm. . . Well, I do not claim to be a mind reader, so I will not speculate on motives.
But Jon G has made no bones about the fact that his preference is to create a new entity with taxing authority of its own, so that the entire school district would be taxed for village parks. He has stated this over and over.
There were a few other minor language issues we saw with the lease. A copy of those changes was given to the village people, who said they would discuss our concerns at their council meeting scheduled for that evening. Cheryl and Mona said they would attend, in case there were questions.
When they left, I did a quick check of just how many village residents were involved in the Rec program. I used the list of current participants, so of course it did not include anything for fall sports (which they said would be the FIRST time the discount would be given to residents - even though fall sports are not played on village parks).
Out of the 612 participants we had in Spring sports, fully 320 are Village residents - over 52%. During our meeting, we said that this lease would force us to raise fees on the others to make up for the village discount. Gochenour kept referring to it being such a small cost to us - but clearly that would not be the case. If we had to raise fees on 2/3 to make up for 1/3 having a 50% discount, it would be very difficult . . . but if we have to raise fees to the extent that the numbers truly reflect, the Rec program cannot continue to exist.
(as a side note, we also looked up the taxes paid for park levies by particular village residents and then calculated what their children's participation fees would be under the Village's proposed lease - more than a few would receive a discount greater than their tax bill)
Could that be their goal - to sabotage the Swanton Rec program, so that it dies - and then they can create a taxing entity in its place? Only Jon Gochenour knows the answer to that question.
These statistics were shared with Pam Moore prior to the council meeting that night. The vote that night to insist that the school district sign the original village lease was unanimous by Village Council. Apparently our concern that their proposal had great potential to harm the program fell on deaf ears.
Honestly, though, I am against this proposed lease on principle. Even if there was only one village participant out of the whole bunch, that one person should not receive a discount on their participation fees simply because s/he lived in the village.
The fee structure is designed to be fair to EVERYONE. For out-of-district participants, there is a slightly higher fee. But all school district kids are under the same fee structure, with discounts given only for multiple children in the same household. That is how it has always been done in the past - that is how it is done by every other recreation district in the state. That is the FAIR way to handle fees.
The attempt by Village Council to hold these sports programs hostage to their demands is terrible. Their apparent disregard for the kids of our community is shameful. I hope village residents take note of what has been happening - these are their elected officials, and should be held accountable.
Plus, it is their elected officials who keep deferring to their employee - the Village Administrator. When two council members are fully engaged in the planning process of a new and positive thing for the community - when they state with great confidence and enthusiasm that their colleagues will support the plan that they helped to forge - and when these same council members then make a 180degree turn on the matter once the Village Administrator becomes involved, something is very very wrong.
I just hope that good sense and concern for our kids will return to Village Council, so that we may get back to the business of making a positive impact on our community - together.
It's not too late.
A meeting was scheduled between the village and the school district on Monday, April 27th. In attendance from the village was the Mayor, Village Administrator Jon Gochenour, and council members Mike Rochelle and Pam Moore. Representing the school district was Superintendent Paulette Baz, Treasurer/CFO Cheryl Swisher, and board members Mona Dyke and myself.
Some of the general goals and ideas for the (new) Swanton Rec program were discussed, as none of the village folk had attended our Board meetings and a couple of them mentioned feeling 'out of the loop'. (altho they could have known these things had they attended a board meeting or talked with Mike R. or Pam . . . .)
Anyway, Cheryl reiterated our desire to work amicably with the Village on an agreement that was fair to both sides. We spoke only briefly about the concessions - we explained what our plan had been (to allow the Booster Clubs to do concessions at the games) and Mike Rochelle stated that an ad had been placed (he didn't say where) asking non-profit groups who were interested in running concessions to contact the Village. When asked which non-profits they hoped to have reply, he mentioned the Lion's Club, Rotary, and (drum roll) : the SACC (of which Mr. Gochenour is Treasurer and Village Council member Deacon Dzierzawski is Secretary). We did mention that we had purchased equipment within the buildings that we would want back. There was no response to that statement, either time it was mentioned.
The lion's share of the conversation was concerning their proposed 50% discount to participants who are Village residents. I asked if we might see the lease agreements they had with other sports programs (men's slo-pitch, etc) so that we might compare them with the proposed lease they had prepared for us - and Mike R. said that no other groups had a lease. I said, "then - this is a punitive measure?" and Jon G rolled his eyes.
It was stated by village people several times during our meeting that, as everyone used the parks, it was "not fair" for only village residents to be taxed for the parks. Being a Lucas County resident myself, these statements struck me as odd. Parks are always paid for by taxes on the residents who live there. Rarely, you might find one that has little booth set up to check drivers' licenses to ascertain whether the visitor is a local person or not, with a small fee charged to the non-resident. (I know Olander Park in Sylvania did that for quite a while - maybe still does.)
But -as you all know - the norm is for anyone from anywhere be able to use local parks at various places, while the only people paying for their maintenance etc. are the residents, who do so via specific taxes for that purpose. (Typically, privately owned land is appraised at a higher value when located next to a park or other green space in a municipality - but, I digress . . . )
One of the village representatives stated that the recreation program fees for village participants should be reduced by half because that would make it "fair" for everyone. Several times, they said it shouldn't be "such a big deal", as this was only a small minority of our entire program enrollment, and the difference could easily be made up by raising the program fees on the non-village participants. Mr. Gochenour mentioned the high cost of water and electricity, and how expensive it was to change a lightbulb up at the park and how they had never charged us for any of that before. . .
We went round and round on this issue. There were many "eye rollings" by Mr. Gochenour throughout the course of the 1 1/2 + hour meeting, along with several smirks.
Cheryl again asked, "we need to work together - what will it take for us to get this moving forward?" The Mayor agreed with her that we need to move forward, and leave the past where it is. He also seemed to feel that the Village had been left 'out of the loop' on things. Again - I'm not sure exactly on what, but I mentioned that they had received a personal invitation to our special board meeting where we planned to discuss the program, but no one came. No one responded to my statement.
Pam and Mike mentioned that the fee discount would not be implemented until fall sports - and it was likely that it would not be a requirement in next year's lease.
Do those statements reveal the true purpose of this proposed discount to village residents, that would potentially impact them just in time for the November ballot? hmmmmm. . . Well, I do not claim to be a mind reader, so I will not speculate on motives.
But Jon G has made no bones about the fact that his preference is to create a new entity with taxing authority of its own, so that the entire school district would be taxed for village parks. He has stated this over and over.
There were a few other minor language issues we saw with the lease. A copy of those changes was given to the village people, who said they would discuss our concerns at their council meeting scheduled for that evening. Cheryl and Mona said they would attend, in case there were questions.
When they left, I did a quick check of just how many village residents were involved in the Rec program. I used the list of current participants, so of course it did not include anything for fall sports (which they said would be the FIRST time the discount would be given to residents - even though fall sports are not played on village parks).
Out of the 612 participants we had in Spring sports, fully 320 are Village residents - over 52%. During our meeting, we said that this lease would force us to raise fees on the others to make up for the village discount. Gochenour kept referring to it being such a small cost to us - but clearly that would not be the case. If we had to raise fees on 2/3 to make up for 1/3 having a 50% discount, it would be very difficult . . . but if we have to raise fees to the extent that the numbers truly reflect, the Rec program cannot continue to exist.
(as a side note, we also looked up the taxes paid for park levies by particular village residents and then calculated what their children's participation fees would be under the Village's proposed lease - more than a few would receive a discount greater than their tax bill)
Could that be their goal - to sabotage the Swanton Rec program, so that it dies - and then they can create a taxing entity in its place? Only Jon Gochenour knows the answer to that question.
These statistics were shared with Pam Moore prior to the council meeting that night. The vote that night to insist that the school district sign the original village lease was unanimous by Village Council. Apparently our concern that their proposal had great potential to harm the program fell on deaf ears.
Honestly, though, I am against this proposed lease on principle. Even if there was only one village participant out of the whole bunch, that one person should not receive a discount on their participation fees simply because s/he lived in the village.
The fee structure is designed to be fair to EVERYONE. For out-of-district participants, there is a slightly higher fee. But all school district kids are under the same fee structure, with discounts given only for multiple children in the same household. That is how it has always been done in the past - that is how it is done by every other recreation district in the state. That is the FAIR way to handle fees.
The attempt by Village Council to hold these sports programs hostage to their demands is terrible. Their apparent disregard for the kids of our community is shameful. I hope village residents take note of what has been happening - these are their elected officials, and should be held accountable.
Plus, it is their elected officials who keep deferring to their employee - the Village Administrator. When two council members are fully engaged in the planning process of a new and positive thing for the community - when they state with great confidence and enthusiasm that their colleagues will support the plan that they helped to forge - and when these same council members then make a 180degree turn on the matter once the Village Administrator becomes involved, something is very very wrong.
I just hope that good sense and concern for our kids will return to Village Council, so that we may get back to the business of making a positive impact on our community - together.
It's not too late.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
April Board Meeting
Our April meeting was held on the 21st, and we opened the business part of the meeting with commendations and recognition of several young men and one young lady who are members of Mr. Kauffman's Tech Prep Accounting class - the only program of its kind in NW Ohio. This group of students had recently won a prestigious award and we were pleased to give them additional recognition that evening.
During the Public Relations portion of the meeting, a parent shared his concerns with the Board about the softball program in which his daughter wishes to participate through the newly formed Swanton Rec Program. Others might also have some questions, as many things will be handled differently than past practice under the former program. Please do not hesitate to contact Paulette Baz at the Board Office with your questions on the new policies of the Swanton Rec Program!
During the Treasurer's portion of the meeting, Cheryl Swisher reminded everyone that our financial reports are on the NWOCA website and current as of midnight the night before. If you would like instructions for accessing these reports, please let her know, as she has prepared a sheet to walk you through the process.
We did not discuss the 5 year forecast, as we are going to have a special meeting on that subject.
The Superintendent's portion of the meeting included certificated teacher contracts, classified contracts, and non-renewals. There were several pages of names involved in these categories. One person whose contract was up for non-renewal was present at the meeting and requested to address the Board. She read a prepared statement. (we were not given a copy)
Under New Business, the Board accepted several donations to the various media centers, and approved the 2009-10 Athletic Handbook. Athletic pass fees were also approved, as well as the Middle School Cedar Point Trip.
The Village had delivered a proposed lease agreement via Administrator Gochenour the prior Wednesday. We had asked our attorney to look it over, and Paulette said she was convening a meeting of the Superintendent's Committee on Rec to discuss it. Therefore we took no action on the proposed lease that evening.
Beginning this meeting at 6:30 helped make possible a finish at 10:15 - even with two executive sessions thrown into the mix. Personally, I would rather have this early start time for every meeting, if it means we will be able to get business done and get home at a decent time
! But - there are some days when business will just take longer and that's just the way it is.
During the Public Relations portion of the meeting, a parent shared his concerns with the Board about the softball program in which his daughter wishes to participate through the newly formed Swanton Rec Program. Others might also have some questions, as many things will be handled differently than past practice under the former program. Please do not hesitate to contact Paulette Baz at the Board Office with your questions on the new policies of the Swanton Rec Program!
During the Treasurer's portion of the meeting, Cheryl Swisher reminded everyone that our financial reports are on the NWOCA website and current as of midnight the night before. If you would like instructions for accessing these reports, please let her know, as she has prepared a sheet to walk you through the process.
We did not discuss the 5 year forecast, as we are going to have a special meeting on that subject.
The Superintendent's portion of the meeting included certificated teacher contracts, classified contracts, and non-renewals. There were several pages of names involved in these categories. One person whose contract was up for non-renewal was present at the meeting and requested to address the Board. She read a prepared statement. (we were not given a copy)
Under New Business, the Board accepted several donations to the various media centers, and approved the 2009-10 Athletic Handbook. Athletic pass fees were also approved, as well as the Middle School Cedar Point Trip.
The Village had delivered a proposed lease agreement via Administrator Gochenour the prior Wednesday. We had asked our attorney to look it over, and Paulette said she was convening a meeting of the Superintendent's Committee on Rec to discuss it. Therefore we took no action on the proposed lease that evening.
Beginning this meeting at 6:30 helped make possible a finish at 10:15 - even with two executive sessions thrown into the mix. Personally, I would rather have this early start time for every meeting, if it means we will be able to get business done and get home at a decent time
! But - there are some days when business will just take longer and that's just the way it is.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Wha' happened??
In my last note, I shared a little information on the newly formed Swanton Recreation Program that was created to replace the former Park & Rec joint venture between the school district and the village. Although I mentioned the people who had been involved in committee meetings to discuss the options before us, I really didn't say very much about the details.
Apparently I should have.
Therefore, I will now share with you some of those details.
In early November 2008, our Superintendent Paulette Baz set up a meeting with Mike Wiederman and myself from the school district, and Pam Moore and Mike Rochelle from the Village. The stated purpose of this committee was to forge a plan for continuing the recreation programs for the kids in our community without a tax levy to fund those programs.
(A short history: Under the old Park & Rec system, the Village responsibililty was for the physical "half" of the partnership: the parks, the concession stand buildings, etc. (The Village has a tax levy on village residents for the physical upkeep of the parks). The old Park & Rec half under the school district had the responsibility of the sports programs, plus did the concessions at the games and also performed minor maintenance in the parks related to the sports programs. This is how the joint Park & Rec had operated since 1986. In addition, for some reason a tax levy had been instituted for the sports programs of Park & Rec through the school district, and therefore had taxed residents in the entire district. I still cannot answer how this came to be, when no other recreation district in the state has a tax on its residents for sports programs. . . but, regardless, this School Board unanimously decided to stop this tax and, instead, structure the program as our peer groups locally and other groups in Ohio had structured theirs.)
The meetings of this Superintendent's Committee were serious attempts by those present to see, first of all, if the existing Park & Rec program could somehow be 'fixed', and if not, then to investigate what other avenues were open to us. Attorneys looked over our documents, and those of other sports/rec programs in the state and offered suggestions. Information from other local rec programs (Anthony Wayne, Sylvania, etc.) was obtained and studied. Our varsity coaches were asked for their input. No stone was left unturned.
The overriding goals by all involved were to keep these sports/rec programs going for our kids and community; to keep the cost to participants as close to the former rates as possible; and to have all programs be self-funded. In addition, the Village would continue their responsibility for the physical parks and buildings and the school district would continue responsibility for the programs along with its long standing agreement with the Village on minor field maintenance, etc.
It quickly became obvious that the former Park & Rec had to go. No amount of effort would be able to "fix" it.
We then looked at three options that were suggested by the attorney. There were pros and cons to each one. (anyone interested in seeing exactly what those options were may ask Paulette for a copy of them) Hours were spent by each of us in research. More hours were then spent together in our meetings, as we shared information. Each option was discussed and debated, with the former stated goals in mind.
At the end of that meeting December 3rd, I was elated! All of us in that room - Mike Rochelle and Pam Moore from Village Council, Mike Wiederman, Paulette, and myself - had hammered out a plan, and it was a good one. The decision had been made to dissolve the existing Park & Rec at a joint meeting of Council and School Board, and we would then immediately create a new entity: the Swanton Rec Program. A new board would be put together (with members of the existing board welcome to apply, if interested). The Village would continue to do as they had in the past and Paulette would get our varsity coaches directly involved (on a volunteer basis). The new board would need to be formed quickly, as Spring sports were almost upon us and we wanted the transition to be seamless, if possible. Mike and Pam were going to share with the other Village Council members and their Administrator what we had agreed upon so that a joint meeting could be scheduled quickly. The plan was to hold this joint meeting ASAP - hopefully before Christmas, so that the new board could be in place and actively working on Spring programs immediately.
I can honestly say that the mood at this meeting was positive all around. These Committee members had come together - hashed out every detail and option possible - and had jointly decided on a course of action. There was no arm twisting by anyone. This was truly a cooperative venture in all respects. I went home that night and told my husband how GREAT it had all been! I was almost giddy, I was so encouraged by the shared vision in that room! The next day, I wrote an email to the other BOE members to summarize that meeting. Here is what it said:
Greetings~
As you know, last night was a meeting with Mike, myself, Paulette, Pam Moore and Mike Rochelle. Our purpose was to take a look at the options available that would allow a recreation system to exist in Swanton but would NOT be a continuance of the same old mess we've had for the past 20+ years. Along with that, we all wanted a workable solution that would be agreeable to both the Village and the School District - even though we all recognize that any change will have some detractors.
Paulette had received some written guidance from our athletics guru from Ennis Roberts Fisher about the various legal options and their ramifications. She had also been busy delegating some investigative work to Tim Zieroff and others, so that we could make an informed decision.
All things considered, it appears our best choice will be to dissolve the existing Park & Rec and create a new Swanton Recreation Program.
. . . The thought last night was to have Pam and Mike R report back to Village Council members . . . and for us to do the same to you. Then, any questions could be fielded by Paulette over the next week or so. She is also going to speak with Jon Gochenour about it, as Mike R indicated Jon would support this IF he was informed early in the game.
Village Council will have their next meeting and discuss it in a bit more depth in executive session (as it relates to employee/employment issues). Our (regular) meeting for December would include a time set aside for a joint session with Village Council to dissolve the existing P&R and immediately create the new entity, with no gap of time elapsed. We could have an early executive session that evening as well, to talk among ourselves prior to the joint meeting.
It is clear that we need a transition plan for the next couple of months, given that parents have already signed kids up for a few things that will be occurring shortly. Paulette and Cheryl will work on that transition plan, including the finance end of things.
One thing was made clear last night: the new entity will be fee based for operations. Various specifics were mentioned on how to save costs to keep fees reasonable. We all agreed that a huge amount of waste has been happening for many years and that must STOP. Once we're able to work a bit more in depth with the numbers, we'll be in a better position to see just what those fees might be.
There are several local districts that are operating successful recreation programs, and Tim Zieroff has been speaking with them about specifics in their systems. . . . .
Another thing that will need to be done is to advertise for 5 people to sit on the new board that will be established. Three will be required to live in the Village - two will be required to be residents of our school district. All current board members will be encouraged to re-apply for a position, if interested. Village Council will choose 3 board members, and we will choose 2.
In addition, it was determined that a clerk/treasurer would be required to handle ALL paperwork and financial issues of the new program, with Cheryl providing only some guidance when necessary. Paulette is uncomfortable having only a volunteer handle all that money - she prefers the position be paid in some fashion. Mike W and I were very clear that if it was decided to pay someone to do this job, it would have to be on a sub-contractor basis of some type, as we were NOT going to place someone on the school district payroll. Paulette is going to check into how exactly we would handle this question legally - whether with 1099s or whatever.
There were many other aspects touched on last night, and if you have questions please give Paulette a call. All in all, it was a pretty productive meeting. Everyone agreed that we must all be on the same page for this to succeed, as it will be different from what folks have been used to doing and change always makes people nervous. Yet, the potential here is awesome!
I am excited to see the Village coming together with us on this, and it was also gratifying to see them grasp the magnitude of the financial mess the current system has been. While they are slightly more hesitant to immediately give up the idea of taxes somehow subsidizing the participant fees, they are willing to do everything possible to make it work as a fee-based system. How the remaining $40K+ in the P&R coffers will be handled remains to be determined - but we'll figure it out, or rather CHERYL will figure it out !! :-)
So give any of us a call if you have any other questions!
I received an email on Dec. 17th from Paulette, who was trying to coordinate a meeting with Mike Rochelle and Pam Moore to over the proposed documents for the new program before Christmas, and also schedule our joint meeting. I gave her my availability, but told her not to hold up the works if I was not able to attend but to go ahead as soon as she could get things together with the others.
Time passed. I began to get antsy. What was the holdup?? Well, the holidays can make it difficult to schedule such mundane things as meetings, so the next plan was to schedule as quickly as possible after New Year's.
Yet - on January 15 I was sending an email to Paulette asking what was going on? Why did we still not have a meeting scheduled with the Village? Village Administrator Jon Gochenour was involved and had been refusing to schedule anything. However, Paulette's email reply to me stated that a Jan. 27th meeting had been scheduled to go over program budgets and Spring sports programs. This was clearly far beyond the timing discussed at our Dec. 3rd joint meeting, and had the potential of adversely affecting the Spring programs under a new entity.
And then Mr. Gochenour deigned to attend the meeting.
Mr. Gochenour, Mike Rochelle, and Pam Moore attended, as did Mike Wiederman and Paulette. (I was unable to be there) Suddenly - the consensus between us had evaporated. Gochenour insisted that our carefully forged, joint plan of action was not in the best interest of anyone (translation: the Village). He demanded that a different approach be taken: that a new joint entity be created that would - again - levy taxes based on school district boundaries. He referred to the Sylvania model as an example; however, he was - shall we say - a bit disingenuous to give the impression that the Sylvania tax was for programs. (It isn't. It is for physical fields and maintenance of those fields outside of the town proper)
More amazing and distressing to me was that Mike Rochelle and Pam Moore now were at odds with the very plan they had helped to create! What had happened??
The School Board then scheduled a special meeting for Feb. 5, and the sole agenda item was to discuss the recreation program. Although it was advertised as per the O.R.C., no one from Village Council, the current Park & Rec board, nor any member of the public came. The full Board was brought up to speed with the details of what had happened at the most recent meeting of the Superintendent's Committee, and the current status of the Spring sports programs. Paulette provided a press release to Drew Stambaugh for the Swanton Enterprise. He printed it in its entirety - and also included comments on the subject that were apparently made anonymously, as he "neglected" to give the name(s) of whoever made those comments.
A special email invitation was then sent to members of the existing Park & Rec board, as well as Mike Rochelle and Pam Moore to attend our regularly scheduled Board meeting on Feb. 17th. This email indicated that Park & Rec was on our agenda for that evening. No one from Village Council came to that Board meeting.
I have already written about what happened at that February Board meeting. In short, the Board decided to move ahead with what had originally been agreed upon by Village Council representatives and Board representatives on the Superintendent's Committee. Our involvement with the existing Park & Rec was dissolved, which effectively ended that program. We then created the Swanton Recreation Program to serve our kids and community.
So - why am I sharing all of this historical detail with you now? Because Mr. Gochenour is not finished with us yet.
Last Wednesday, April 15th, a proposed lease from the Village was delivered by Mr. Gochenour to the Board office. That same afternoon, Marcy Zaner went to get the keys from the Village to the concession stand so that the Boosters could access the facilities for the scheduled event that evening. Mr. Gochenour refused to give her the keys - he stated he would not give the keys to anyone until the lease was signed and returned to him.
The lease prepared by Mr. Gochenour was obviously not reviewed by the Village attorney of record, as several items contained therein make it unsign-able by anyone. Here is a link to a pdf copy of this proposed lease, so that you may see it for yourselves.
As Paulette was out of town, Cheryl Swisher placed a call to Mike Rochelle to try and understand what was happening. She told him that certain stipulations in the proposed lease had the potential to have a terribly detrimental effect on the Rec programs - to which Mr. Rochelle replied that "the Board should have thought of that before (they voted to dissolve Park & Rec)."
Say, what??
In addition, Mr. Rochelle said that the Village required control of all concessions (which is mentioned in the proposed lease). He said that Council felt a non-profit group should handle concessions (hmmmm . . . ya suppose he was talking about Deacon's baby, the SACC, which is running through its grant money a bit too quickly these days??).
So Mr. Gochenour's statement to Ms. Zaner was false. The signing of the proposed lease would NOT release keys to the Booster clubs to run concessions. (After the exchange with Mr. Gochenour, the Booster Club returned all of the food items they had purchased for concessions.)
You will see that the proposed lease includes a clause for a 50% discount to be given on participant fees to Village residents. Where did that come from? As Mr. Rochelle and Ms. Moore know from our meetings together, the Rec program can be self-sufficient at the same fee levels as last year. Cutting a group of participants' required fees in half would require hiking the fees on everyone else - which would obviously jeopardize the entire program. Besides that - does the Village have any such agreement with any other group that uses their fields? No - so why propose to do that to the Swanton Rec program??
But wait - there's more. Someone at the Village found and dusted off an ancient ordinance that states concession sales may not begin prior to May 15th. Now obviously that ordinance has been waived for decades, without any adverse affects to anyone. Why pull it out now?
In addition, the school district has several items of equipment etc. used for Rec programs stored in Village buildings. The locks on these buildings have been changed - we are being denied access to our stuff at this time. Why is that?
Please note: Nothing has been done by the school district or Board to adversely affect the Village. We were planning to continue our field maintenance for our sports programs as we have done for over 20 years. We were planning to have our various booster clubs handle concessions. We planned on an amicable and mutually beneficial relationship with the Village. We worked very closely with two members of Village Council to put together a joint plan for the good of our kids and community.
I am absolutely flabbergasted as to why the Village is now setting road blocks before us. However, Paulette is trying to set up a meeting with Mr. Rochelle and Ms. Moore for this coming Saturday morning, so that we may again try to reach an agreement in the best interest of our community. Mr. Gochenour has also been invited to attend.
If you are a village resident, perhaps you could call a Council member to ask about these curious events.
It is a puzzler.
Apparently I should have.
Therefore, I will now share with you some of those details.
In early November 2008, our Superintendent Paulette Baz set up a meeting with Mike Wiederman and myself from the school district, and Pam Moore and Mike Rochelle from the Village. The stated purpose of this committee was to forge a plan for continuing the recreation programs for the kids in our community without a tax levy to fund those programs.
(A short history: Under the old Park & Rec system, the Village responsibililty was for the physical "half" of the partnership: the parks, the concession stand buildings, etc. (The Village has a tax levy on village residents for the physical upkeep of the parks). The old Park & Rec half under the school district had the responsibility of the sports programs, plus did the concessions at the games and also performed minor maintenance in the parks related to the sports programs. This is how the joint Park & Rec had operated since 1986. In addition, for some reason a tax levy had been instituted for the sports programs of Park & Rec through the school district, and therefore had taxed residents in the entire district. I still cannot answer how this came to be, when no other recreation district in the state has a tax on its residents for sports programs. . . but, regardless, this School Board unanimously decided to stop this tax and, instead, structure the program as our peer groups locally and other groups in Ohio had structured theirs.)
The meetings of this Superintendent's Committee were serious attempts by those present to see, first of all, if the existing Park & Rec program could somehow be 'fixed', and if not, then to investigate what other avenues were open to us. Attorneys looked over our documents, and those of other sports/rec programs in the state and offered suggestions. Information from other local rec programs (Anthony Wayne, Sylvania, etc.) was obtained and studied. Our varsity coaches were asked for their input. No stone was left unturned.
The overriding goals by all involved were to keep these sports/rec programs going for our kids and community; to keep the cost to participants as close to the former rates as possible; and to have all programs be self-funded. In addition, the Village would continue their responsibility for the physical parks and buildings and the school district would continue responsibility for the programs along with its long standing agreement with the Village on minor field maintenance, etc.
It quickly became obvious that the former Park & Rec had to go. No amount of effort would be able to "fix" it.
We then looked at three options that were suggested by the attorney. There were pros and cons to each one. (anyone interested in seeing exactly what those options were may ask Paulette for a copy of them) Hours were spent by each of us in research. More hours were then spent together in our meetings, as we shared information. Each option was discussed and debated, with the former stated goals in mind.
At the end of that meeting December 3rd, I was elated! All of us in that room - Mike Rochelle and Pam Moore from Village Council, Mike Wiederman, Paulette, and myself - had hammered out a plan, and it was a good one. The decision had been made to dissolve the existing Park & Rec at a joint meeting of Council and School Board, and we would then immediately create a new entity: the Swanton Rec Program. A new board would be put together (with members of the existing board welcome to apply, if interested). The Village would continue to do as they had in the past and Paulette would get our varsity coaches directly involved (on a volunteer basis). The new board would need to be formed quickly, as Spring sports were almost upon us and we wanted the transition to be seamless, if possible. Mike and Pam were going to share with the other Village Council members and their Administrator what we had agreed upon so that a joint meeting could be scheduled quickly. The plan was to hold this joint meeting ASAP - hopefully before Christmas, so that the new board could be in place and actively working on Spring programs immediately.
I can honestly say that the mood at this meeting was positive all around. These Committee members had come together - hashed out every detail and option possible - and had jointly decided on a course of action. There was no arm twisting by anyone. This was truly a cooperative venture in all respects. I went home that night and told my husband how GREAT it had all been! I was almost giddy, I was so encouraged by the shared vision in that room! The next day, I wrote an email to the other BOE members to summarize that meeting. Here is what it said:
Greetings~
As you know, last night was a meeting with Mike, myself, Paulette, Pam Moore and Mike Rochelle. Our purpose was to take a look at the options available that would allow a recreation system to exist in Swanton but would NOT be a continuance of the same old mess we've had for the past 20+ years. Along with that, we all wanted a workable solution that would be agreeable to both the Village and the School District - even though we all recognize that any change will have some detractors.
Paulette had received some written guidance from our athletics guru from Ennis Roberts Fisher about the various legal options and their ramifications. She had also been busy delegating some investigative work to Tim Zieroff and others, so that we could make an informed decision.
All things considered, it appears our best choice will be to dissolve the existing Park & Rec and create a new Swanton Recreation Program.
. . . The thought last night was to have Pam and Mike R report back to Village Council members . . . and for us to do the same to you. Then, any questions could be fielded by Paulette over the next week or so. She is also going to speak with Jon Gochenour about it, as Mike R indicated Jon would support this IF he was informed early in the game.
Village Council will have their next meeting and discuss it in a bit more depth in executive session (as it relates to employee/employment issues). Our (regular) meeting for December would include a time set aside for a joint session with Village Council to dissolve the existing P&R and immediately create the new entity, with no gap of time elapsed. We could have an early executive session that evening as well, to talk among ourselves prior to the joint meeting.
It is clear that we need a transition plan for the next couple of months, given that parents have already signed kids up for a few things that will be occurring shortly. Paulette and Cheryl will work on that transition plan, including the finance end of things.
One thing was made clear last night: the new entity will be fee based for operations. Various specifics were mentioned on how to save costs to keep fees reasonable. We all agreed that a huge amount of waste has been happening for many years and that must STOP. Once we're able to work a bit more in depth with the numbers, we'll be in a better position to see just what those fees might be.
There are several local districts that are operating successful recreation programs, and Tim Zieroff has been speaking with them about specifics in their systems. . . . .
Another thing that will need to be done is to advertise for 5 people to sit on the new board that will be established. Three will be required to live in the Village - two will be required to be residents of our school district. All current board members will be encouraged to re-apply for a position, if interested. Village Council will choose 3 board members, and we will choose 2.
In addition, it was determined that a clerk/treasurer would be required to handle ALL paperwork and financial issues of the new program, with Cheryl providing only some guidance when necessary. Paulette is uncomfortable having only a volunteer handle all that money - she prefers the position be paid in some fashion. Mike W and I were very clear that if it was decided to pay someone to do this job, it would have to be on a sub-contractor basis of some type, as we were NOT going to place someone on the school district payroll. Paulette is going to check into how exactly we would handle this question legally - whether with 1099s or whatever.
There were many other aspects touched on last night, and if you have questions please give Paulette a call. All in all, it was a pretty productive meeting. Everyone agreed that we must all be on the same page for this to succeed, as it will be different from what folks have been used to doing and change always makes people nervous. Yet, the potential here is awesome!
I am excited to see the Village coming together with us on this, and it was also gratifying to see them grasp the magnitude of the financial mess the current system has been. While they are slightly more hesitant to immediately give up the idea of taxes somehow subsidizing the participant fees, they are willing to do everything possible to make it work as a fee-based system. How the remaining $40K+ in the P&R coffers will be handled remains to be determined - but we'll figure it out, or rather CHERYL will figure it out !! :-)
So give any of us a call if you have any other questions!
I received an email on Dec. 17th from Paulette, who was trying to coordinate a meeting with Mike Rochelle and Pam Moore to over the proposed documents for the new program before Christmas, and also schedule our joint meeting. I gave her my availability, but told her not to hold up the works if I was not able to attend but to go ahead as soon as she could get things together with the others.
Time passed. I began to get antsy. What was the holdup?? Well, the holidays can make it difficult to schedule such mundane things as meetings, so the next plan was to schedule as quickly as possible after New Year's.
Yet - on January 15 I was sending an email to Paulette asking what was going on? Why did we still not have a meeting scheduled with the Village? Village Administrator Jon Gochenour was involved and had been refusing to schedule anything. However, Paulette's email reply to me stated that a Jan. 27th meeting had been scheduled to go over program budgets and Spring sports programs. This was clearly far beyond the timing discussed at our Dec. 3rd joint meeting, and had the potential of adversely affecting the Spring programs under a new entity.
And then Mr. Gochenour deigned to attend the meeting.
Mr. Gochenour, Mike Rochelle, and Pam Moore attended, as did Mike Wiederman and Paulette. (I was unable to be there) Suddenly - the consensus between us had evaporated. Gochenour insisted that our carefully forged, joint plan of action was not in the best interest of anyone (translation: the Village). He demanded that a different approach be taken: that a new joint entity be created that would - again - levy taxes based on school district boundaries. He referred to the Sylvania model as an example; however, he was - shall we say - a bit disingenuous to give the impression that the Sylvania tax was for programs. (It isn't. It is for physical fields and maintenance of those fields outside of the town proper)
More amazing and distressing to me was that Mike Rochelle and Pam Moore now were at odds with the very plan they had helped to create! What had happened??
The School Board then scheduled a special meeting for Feb. 5, and the sole agenda item was to discuss the recreation program. Although it was advertised as per the O.R.C., no one from Village Council, the current Park & Rec board, nor any member of the public came. The full Board was brought up to speed with the details of what had happened at the most recent meeting of the Superintendent's Committee, and the current status of the Spring sports programs. Paulette provided a press release to Drew Stambaugh for the Swanton Enterprise. He printed it in its entirety - and also included comments on the subject that were apparently made anonymously, as he "neglected" to give the name(s) of whoever made those comments.
A special email invitation was then sent to members of the existing Park & Rec board, as well as Mike Rochelle and Pam Moore to attend our regularly scheduled Board meeting on Feb. 17th. This email indicated that Park & Rec was on our agenda for that evening. No one from Village Council came to that Board meeting.
I have already written about what happened at that February Board meeting. In short, the Board decided to move ahead with what had originally been agreed upon by Village Council representatives and Board representatives on the Superintendent's Committee. Our involvement with the existing Park & Rec was dissolved, which effectively ended that program. We then created the Swanton Recreation Program to serve our kids and community.
So - why am I sharing all of this historical detail with you now? Because Mr. Gochenour is not finished with us yet.
Last Wednesday, April 15th, a proposed lease from the Village was delivered by Mr. Gochenour to the Board office. That same afternoon, Marcy Zaner went to get the keys from the Village to the concession stand so that the Boosters could access the facilities for the scheduled event that evening. Mr. Gochenour refused to give her the keys - he stated he would not give the keys to anyone until the lease was signed and returned to him.
The lease prepared by Mr. Gochenour was obviously not reviewed by the Village attorney of record, as several items contained therein make it unsign-able by anyone. Here is a link to a pdf copy of this proposed lease, so that you may see it for yourselves.
As Paulette was out of town, Cheryl Swisher placed a call to Mike Rochelle to try and understand what was happening. She told him that certain stipulations in the proposed lease had the potential to have a terribly detrimental effect on the Rec programs - to which Mr. Rochelle replied that "the Board should have thought of that before (they voted to dissolve Park & Rec)."
Say, what??
In addition, Mr. Rochelle said that the Village required control of all concessions (which is mentioned in the proposed lease). He said that Council felt a non-profit group should handle concessions (hmmmm . . . ya suppose he was talking about Deacon's baby, the SACC, which is running through its grant money a bit too quickly these days??).
So Mr. Gochenour's statement to Ms. Zaner was false. The signing of the proposed lease would NOT release keys to the Booster clubs to run concessions. (After the exchange with Mr. Gochenour, the Booster Club returned all of the food items they had purchased for concessions.)
You will see that the proposed lease includes a clause for a 50% discount to be given on participant fees to Village residents. Where did that come from? As Mr. Rochelle and Ms. Moore know from our meetings together, the Rec program can be self-sufficient at the same fee levels as last year. Cutting a group of participants' required fees in half would require hiking the fees on everyone else - which would obviously jeopardize the entire program. Besides that - does the Village have any such agreement with any other group that uses their fields? No - so why propose to do that to the Swanton Rec program??
But wait - there's more. Someone at the Village found and dusted off an ancient ordinance that states concession sales may not begin prior to May 15th. Now obviously that ordinance has been waived for decades, without any adverse affects to anyone. Why pull it out now?
In addition, the school district has several items of equipment etc. used for Rec programs stored in Village buildings. The locks on these buildings have been changed - we are being denied access to our stuff at this time. Why is that?
Please note: Nothing has been done by the school district or Board to adversely affect the Village. We were planning to continue our field maintenance for our sports programs as we have done for over 20 years. We were planning to have our various booster clubs handle concessions. We planned on an amicable and mutually beneficial relationship with the Village. We worked very closely with two members of Village Council to put together a joint plan for the good of our kids and community.
I am absolutely flabbergasted as to why the Village is now setting road blocks before us. However, Paulette is trying to set up a meeting with Mr. Rochelle and Ms. Moore for this coming Saturday morning, so that we may again try to reach an agreement in the best interest of our community. Mr. Gochenour has also been invited to attend.
If you are a village resident, perhaps you could call a Council member to ask about these curious events.
It is a puzzler.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
