Back in the days of my father, who played several high school sports in the '50s, a guy couldn't play unless his grade point average (GPA) was no lower than a "C" - 2.0 on a four point scale. That's just the way it was. That criteria held true when I was in high school in the '70s as well - no one could participate in high school sports with anything lower than a 2.0 GPA.
We are doing many things in our district to equip our students for life after high school, as they become productive and positive adults. Our core curriculum is being beefed up. Technology is getting serious attention, as we strive to give our kids the best educational foundation available. Several other things are in the works, for the benefit of our students.
So it was with some surprise and alarm that I discovered Swanton was subscribing to the lowest possible academic criteria for sports eligibility as established by the OHSAA (of which we are a member) : a 1.0 on a four point scale. That is only slightly above failing! On April 14th, I sent a letter to several board members of the OHSAA, asking how they could state that one mission of the organization is to "recognize and promote academics" when the academic eligibility to play is set so terribly low.
Now, before I get cards and letters - I realize that the OHSAA standards are the minimum, and that member schools are within their rights to require a higher standard than that minimum level. So I did a little survey of my own.
I went online to school websites, and also popped an email to the principals and athletic directors of 34 high schools in the four-county area, plus a few of our neighbors such as Maumee, Perrysburg, Sylvania, and Springfield, all members of OHSAA. Of those from whom I received information, only 2 used the minimum standards for academic eligibility, and Swanton was one of them.
That's the bad news.
Bryan and Bowling Green enforce 1.85 and 1.7, respectively. The vast majority of the rest use a 1.5 requirement, with varying methods to keep the kids at that level, such as requiring study tables when a grade dips or using weekly eligibility. (I made up a spreadsheet of this information, and if you'd like a copy just send me a note with your email address.)
Having fully expected to find schools using the old 2.0 standard, I confess to being very surprised at the results of my survey. Many parents with whom I spoke (at Swanton and other schools) were surprised as well, so at least I was in good company. Most were VERY surprised to learn how low the standards had dipped since their own high school days.
Anyway, I made a short statement and presentation at our April BOE meeting, and it seemed to meet with general approval (except from Dennis Heban - he told me later that it is inappropriate for a Board member to dictate to administrators what they should be doing. . . that They should recommend things to Us for approval, not the other way around, really . . . so evidently I went about this the wrong way - which shows my ignorance of how things should be done! how embarrassing!!)
The principal and assistant principal, along with our athletic director, put their heads together and came up with a recommendation that Swanton move to a 1.5 criteria. Given what I now know of our neighboring schools, that seems to be a reasonable compromise and a definite step in the right direction for our kids.
That's the good news!
Anything we can do to encourage our kids to do their best, is a positive thing!
Friday, April 18, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
My First Hate Mail!
Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later: a resident would send an anonymous note telling me of his/her displeasure with something the Board had done. This one is particulary sad, however, as the author's level of understanding is not able to be lifted since I don't know who to address.
Here's what I received: someone had printed an April 11, 2008 editorial from the online version of Business Week. The gist of it was basically an "Apple vs. Microsoft" thing. It was an op-ed piece - not a news article. The anonymous sender included a 'personal note' on the second page that reads, "Maybe you and your administrators should have done your homework before you spent $500,000 of the taxpayers money ! ! !"
*sigh*
Let's get the facts straight, shall we?
First of all, we did our homework - a LOT of homework. The process actually began last year, and included a December 2007 visit to VARtek's corporate office in Dayton, along with an on-site to Fairmont Kettering High School by a select group of administrators, teaching staff, and support staff. VARtek provides educational technology solutions exclusively to the K-12 education market, and they use both Apple and Microsoft systems. They have been in business for over 19 years, and have worked with over 200 public and parochial schools in Ohio and Indiana. Those visits last December, along with some additional phone calls etc. to clients is what initiated our January request and contract with them to provide a technology integration analysis for our district, including a report on what improvements would be recommended with a long-term managed solution.
Then we went to our staff. Ask any teacher or administrator from any of our 4 schools about the detailed survey they were asked to complete (on which a huge majority obliged). The vast majority of those who took the survey were more than a little disappointed with our current situation. They were angry! They were frustrated! They were also excited to think that the Board was actually going to DO something about a failing system they were forced to wrestle with daily.
Our network is down several times each week, and when it IS operational it is terribly slow. The data cabling infrastructure is at least 10 years old in all of our buildings except the high school. We have no automated back-up and recovery system. (Are you corporate people turning pale yet, from reading this?) Virtually ALL of the workstations/laptops at the high school and Park Elementary are beyond their useful life. Getting our older units to work with newer units is also causing many problems. Common sense would dictate that older units are eliminated - but we have not done so.
We are running multiple operating systems and many different application software versions throughout the district. Our teaching staff has had little training - and they are asking for more. Our expenditures have been slightly higher than our peer schools - yet we have aged equipment, limited curricular software, inappropriate support skill sets, and limited training which results in a less than desirable technology environment to positively impact our students.
So, Yes, Virginia - we did our homework.
Next, the cost issue. One interesting discovery for me as a newbie on the Board was that the district had been spending an average of $323,000 per year on our technology (around $231 per student annually) - and it wasn't working! The system was abysmally slow - when it worked at all - and people in every building had difficulty getting things to print. There is no defined budget, inconsistent home access, limited technology labor skills, limited network engineering and maintenance skills, and no plan for the future. We are limping along, with severely limited functionality, and paying $323K annually for the pleasure. NOT a good thing.
With the proposed technology solution from VARtek, we will spend between $314K to $392K annually and with that we have performance guarantees. We will be spending essentially the same amount, but getting guaranteed results.
Now - that takes care of the 'homework' issue and the 'spending of taxpayer money' issue.
As to that editorial, it's too bad the sender didn't take the time to also read the 30+ pages of comments to get a clear picture of the issues at hand. By itself, the article might be reason to purchase Apple stock for speculative purposes, if you believe Business Week knows what its talking about in an opinion piece, and if you are willing to put your money where their mouth is. But there was nothing written that should have upset John Q. Public about our contract with VARtek, even if s/he had gotten the facts straight about the transaction itself.
Here's what I received: someone had printed an April 11, 2008 editorial from the online version of Business Week. The gist of it was basically an "Apple vs. Microsoft" thing. It was an op-ed piece - not a news article. The anonymous sender included a 'personal note' on the second page that reads, "Maybe you and your administrators should have done your homework before you spent $500,000 of the taxpayers money ! ! !"
*sigh*
Let's get the facts straight, shall we?
First of all, we did our homework - a LOT of homework. The process actually began last year, and included a December 2007 visit to VARtek's corporate office in Dayton, along with an on-site to Fairmont Kettering High School by a select group of administrators, teaching staff, and support staff. VARtek provides educational technology solutions exclusively to the K-12 education market, and they use both Apple and Microsoft systems. They have been in business for over 19 years, and have worked with over 200 public and parochial schools in Ohio and Indiana. Those visits last December, along with some additional phone calls etc. to clients is what initiated our January request and contract with them to provide a technology integration analysis for our district, including a report on what improvements would be recommended with a long-term managed solution.
Then we went to our staff. Ask any teacher or administrator from any of our 4 schools about the detailed survey they were asked to complete (on which a huge majority obliged). The vast majority of those who took the survey were more than a little disappointed with our current situation. They were angry! They were frustrated! They were also excited to think that the Board was actually going to DO something about a failing system they were forced to wrestle with daily.
Our network is down several times each week, and when it IS operational it is terribly slow. The data cabling infrastructure is at least 10 years old in all of our buildings except the high school. We have no automated back-up and recovery system. (Are you corporate people turning pale yet, from reading this?) Virtually ALL of the workstations/laptops at the high school and Park Elementary are beyond their useful life. Getting our older units to work with newer units is also causing many problems. Common sense would dictate that older units are eliminated - but we have not done so.
We are running multiple operating systems and many different application software versions throughout the district. Our teaching staff has had little training - and they are asking for more. Our expenditures have been slightly higher than our peer schools - yet we have aged equipment, limited curricular software, inappropriate support skill sets, and limited training which results in a less than desirable technology environment to positively impact our students.
So, Yes, Virginia - we did our homework.
Next, the cost issue. One interesting discovery for me as a newbie on the Board was that the district had been spending an average of $323,000 per year on our technology (around $231 per student annually) - and it wasn't working! The system was abysmally slow - when it worked at all - and people in every building had difficulty getting things to print. There is no defined budget, inconsistent home access, limited technology labor skills, limited network engineering and maintenance skills, and no plan for the future. We are limping along, with severely limited functionality, and paying $323K annually for the pleasure. NOT a good thing.
With the proposed technology solution from VARtek, we will spend between $314K to $392K annually and with that we have performance guarantees. We will be spending essentially the same amount, but getting guaranteed results.
Now - that takes care of the 'homework' issue and the 'spending of taxpayer money' issue.
As to that editorial, it's too bad the sender didn't take the time to also read the 30+ pages of comments to get a clear picture of the issues at hand. By itself, the article might be reason to purchase Apple stock for speculative purposes, if you believe Business Week knows what its talking about in an opinion piece, and if you are willing to put your money where their mouth is. But there was nothing written that should have upset John Q. Public about our contract with VARtek, even if s/he had gotten the facts straight about the transaction itself.
Monday, March 31, 2008
March Board Mtg Update
Greetings! The Swanton School Board had a very interesting meeting on the third Tuesday in March.
Many people were in attendance, and special guests included members of Village Council as well as the Village Administrator and representatives from Park & Rec. A few folks left immediately after the issue of the disciplinary action taken on two school custodians was finished. When the public was given a chance to speak, a gentleman whose son attends our high school asked what legal rights students had to their private cell phones. We had recently received an update from our attorneys on that very issue, so Ass't Principal Steve Gfell was able to speak with authority and accuracy in his response. The parent had a few more questions and comments to make, and then we went into the meat of our meeting.
A protracted discussion between Village Council and the School Board took place on the subject of the Park & Rec situation. Jeff Michael shared the information he had obtained from Anthony Wayne's recreation board president. Dennis Heban and Mona Dyke weighed in on the discussion, as well as several members of Council. Treasurer Cheryl Swisher was able to share financial pieces of the equation for all to consider. Cheryl also mentioned the positive strides that Park & Rec had taken thus far, in setting policies, etc. I spoke up about the fact that our situation is unique in the state of Ohio - and not in a good way! Although the actual programs are very good, the funding situation needs attention.
After a lengthy discourse, Pres. Dennis Heban stated for the record that the school district would NOT be placing Park & Rec on the November ballot. This was no surprise to anyone in attendance, after hearing all of the evidence at hand. The current levy will provide money to Park & Rec through December 2008 for operating expenses.
Mention was made of the possibility of the school district merely handing over some undeterminate amount of money to Park & Rec for a year, to assist in their weaning off taxpayer dollars. No promise was made beyond that of exploring the ramifications of such an action.
Members of the current Park & Rec board are concerned that their fees to play will have to be increased beyond what folks can pay. However, no one was able to state what profit was made last year in concessions, nor were they able to provide how many participants were enrolled last year. P&R Board President, Howard Schnabel, indicated his willingness to meet with his Anthony Wayne equivalent to learn their methodology. No need to re-invent the wheel here.
Village Council will now decide whether they are interested in adding a Park & Rec levy under their taxing authority umbrella - or not. Remember: Anthony Wayne receives NO TAX DOLLARS for operating their programs, and neither does many other recreation entities in the state of Ohio. The Swanton Park & Rec receives tax money from both the Village and the Swanton Local School District. The Village maintains the parks already - this would not change, regardless of what P&R does or does not do. The big concern seems to be that fees would have to increase more than double in order to offset losing the $60,000 received from the school district levy. However, without a clear understanding as to exactly where the money is going right now, it is a bit premature to speculate on future fee levels, although an increase is likely.
One woman was pointed in her question as to whether the school board was willing to face the "backlash" sure to come if the school did not support P&R financially. She hinted that regular school operating levies would fail if we did not cough up money for P&R. The Board was not intimidated, however. The bottom line was that we were all voted into office for the purpose of keeping the school district's best interests at heart. Giving away $60K of badly needed money is not being fiscally responsible and is not in the best interests of our kids nor our district residents.
Next we had a presentation by VarTek on their proposal to handle our technology issues. It is no secret that our current situation is a mess - we are spending over $250,000 annually and over half the time the machines are non-functioning. VarTek was hired initially to do a thorough survey and inventory of our existing technology systems. Their proposal would not cost us any more money - BUT we would have equipment that worked, a planned back-up system in place, a rotating system for purchasing and retiring machines, and upgrading and standardizing equipment and curriculum.
An interesting result of the survey was the desire of the majority of our teachers and staff to switch from a Mac platform to a PC platform. This will be done in a progressive, phase-out program over 5 years. A few Macs will still remain at the high school level for specific needs there, but eventually our district will be on a PC platform. This means that our kids will graduate with a solid knowledge and experience on the operating system used in the vast majority of business in the "real world". I am excited for them! This will give them a definite advantage upon their graduation from high school.
Also that night, we approved the school calendar for 2008-2009, and the list of graduating seniors, along with the proposed curriculum for next year. It was a very busy meeting that night!
Superintendent Search
Our search for a new superintendent got underway last week. The Board interviewed 4 candidates for the position, and will interview 2 more tomorrow night (Tuesday). After the first round interviews are complete, we will determine who to bring back for a second look. We are eager to find a quality individual to help lead our team into the future, and will make our decision before the end of this school year. It is gratifying to have so many qualified men and women apply for this important position at Swanton. It's the "good news - bad news" situation: the good news is that we have so many top notch folks applying for the position! The bad news is that we have so many top notch folks applying for the position! You can be sure our next Superintendent will be a good fit for our community.
Tonight, the Board has a meeting with two school finance specialists to help clarify some school funding issues. Your school board is doing all they can to make the best use of your tax dollars for the benefit of our kids. With Gov. Ted Strickland taking away school funding pieces from Ohio schools, and energy costs threatening to go through the roof, we need all the help we can get.
Many people were in attendance, and special guests included members of Village Council as well as the Village Administrator and representatives from Park & Rec. A few folks left immediately after the issue of the disciplinary action taken on two school custodians was finished. When the public was given a chance to speak, a gentleman whose son attends our high school asked what legal rights students had to their private cell phones. We had recently received an update from our attorneys on that very issue, so Ass't Principal Steve Gfell was able to speak with authority and accuracy in his response. The parent had a few more questions and comments to make, and then we went into the meat of our meeting.
A protracted discussion between Village Council and the School Board took place on the subject of the Park & Rec situation. Jeff Michael shared the information he had obtained from Anthony Wayne's recreation board president. Dennis Heban and Mona Dyke weighed in on the discussion, as well as several members of Council. Treasurer Cheryl Swisher was able to share financial pieces of the equation for all to consider. Cheryl also mentioned the positive strides that Park & Rec had taken thus far, in setting policies, etc. I spoke up about the fact that our situation is unique in the state of Ohio - and not in a good way! Although the actual programs are very good, the funding situation needs attention.
After a lengthy discourse, Pres. Dennis Heban stated for the record that the school district would NOT be placing Park & Rec on the November ballot. This was no surprise to anyone in attendance, after hearing all of the evidence at hand. The current levy will provide money to Park & Rec through December 2008 for operating expenses.
Mention was made of the possibility of the school district merely handing over some undeterminate amount of money to Park & Rec for a year, to assist in their weaning off taxpayer dollars. No promise was made beyond that of exploring the ramifications of such an action.
Members of the current Park & Rec board are concerned that their fees to play will have to be increased beyond what folks can pay. However, no one was able to state what profit was made last year in concessions, nor were they able to provide how many participants were enrolled last year. P&R Board President, Howard Schnabel, indicated his willingness to meet with his Anthony Wayne equivalent to learn their methodology. No need to re-invent the wheel here.
Village Council will now decide whether they are interested in adding a Park & Rec levy under their taxing authority umbrella - or not. Remember: Anthony Wayne receives NO TAX DOLLARS for operating their programs, and neither does many other recreation entities in the state of Ohio. The Swanton Park & Rec receives tax money from both the Village and the Swanton Local School District. The Village maintains the parks already - this would not change, regardless of what P&R does or does not do. The big concern seems to be that fees would have to increase more than double in order to offset losing the $60,000 received from the school district levy. However, without a clear understanding as to exactly where the money is going right now, it is a bit premature to speculate on future fee levels, although an increase is likely.
One woman was pointed in her question as to whether the school board was willing to face the "backlash" sure to come if the school did not support P&R financially. She hinted that regular school operating levies would fail if we did not cough up money for P&R. The Board was not intimidated, however. The bottom line was that we were all voted into office for the purpose of keeping the school district's best interests at heart. Giving away $60K of badly needed money is not being fiscally responsible and is not in the best interests of our kids nor our district residents.
Next we had a presentation by VarTek on their proposal to handle our technology issues. It is no secret that our current situation is a mess - we are spending over $250,000 annually and over half the time the machines are non-functioning. VarTek was hired initially to do a thorough survey and inventory of our existing technology systems. Their proposal would not cost us any more money - BUT we would have equipment that worked, a planned back-up system in place, a rotating system for purchasing and retiring machines, and upgrading and standardizing equipment and curriculum.
An interesting result of the survey was the desire of the majority of our teachers and staff to switch from a Mac platform to a PC platform. This will be done in a progressive, phase-out program over 5 years. A few Macs will still remain at the high school level for specific needs there, but eventually our district will be on a PC platform. This means that our kids will graduate with a solid knowledge and experience on the operating system used in the vast majority of business in the "real world". I am excited for them! This will give them a definite advantage upon their graduation from high school.
Also that night, we approved the school calendar for 2008-2009, and the list of graduating seniors, along with the proposed curriculum for next year. It was a very busy meeting that night!
Superintendent Search
Our search for a new superintendent got underway last week. The Board interviewed 4 candidates for the position, and will interview 2 more tomorrow night (Tuesday). After the first round interviews are complete, we will determine who to bring back for a second look. We are eager to find a quality individual to help lead our team into the future, and will make our decision before the end of this school year. It is gratifying to have so many qualified men and women apply for this important position at Swanton. It's the "good news - bad news" situation: the good news is that we have so many top notch folks applying for the position! The bad news is that we have so many top notch folks applying for the position! You can be sure our next Superintendent will be a good fit for our community.
Tonight, the Board has a meeting with two school finance specialists to help clarify some school funding issues. Your school board is doing all they can to make the best use of your tax dollars for the benefit of our kids. With Gov. Ted Strickland taking away school funding pieces from Ohio schools, and energy costs threatening to go through the roof, we need all the help we can get.
Monday, March 3, 2008
One Step Forward - One and a Half Steps Back
Things on the homefront have kept me from writing lately, but that doesn't mean Swanton School Board issues have stood still.
At our February Board meeting, a gentlemen stood and said he had heard "rumors" that the Honors Classes were being eliminated from Freshman and Sophomore levels. He spoke at length of his opinion that these classes should NOT be removed. When he finished, President Dennis Heban thanked him for his comments, and moved on.
Here's what's happening: High school assistant principal, Steve Gfell, is doing some in-depth investigating on how best to educate our students. He is putting a lot of time and effort into his research, and one item he is investigating is just how honors classes affect students' opportunities after they leave high school. His research is not complete, and therefore no suggestion or recommendation has been given to the Board. However, there is one particular teacher who is unhappy that the question is being raised, and is trying to pre-empt Mr. Gfell's efforts by spreading half-truths about the situation.
I encourage any resident who has questions about the honors classes or other high school issues to contact Mrs. Baz and Mr. Gfell directly before forming an opinion. These are top notch administrators, and you may trust what they tell you.
Recently, we received notice that there is a danger our electricity bills could increase by 30-40% next January. The Energy for Education II program will expire on December 31st of this year. FirstEnergy (Toledo Edison, etc) has already indicated that it wishes to remove all price breaks for schools and treat them, instead, as corporations. Swanton Local Schools currently pays around $200,000 annually for our electric bill. If FirstEnergy has its way, that could increase $60-$80,000! Obviously no school district can absorb that kind of increase. The PUCO is holding hearings this year on the subject, and our treasurer plans to attend.
In addition, we received an odd letter from the Swanton Education Association (SEA) that ended with a disturbing, vaguely threatening ending. It stated, "If we do not hear from the Board of Education in regards to this matter, we will explore other avenues to get our contract concerns settled." In checking with our treasurer, the process on the 2007-2008 negotiated contract had been going on for this past year - with the SEA holding it up for over 6 months. We had only just received it for final typing, etc. when their note arrived. Very strange. However, I believe this issue has now been smoothed over, and the SEA has indicated they are interested in meeting with the School Board to improve communication between the two entities. Dennis Heban is willing to meet with them if they include our superintendent, treasurer, and administrators as well.
Things are heating up further on the Park & Rec issue. Jeff Michael had an extended conversation with the Anthony Wayne district equivalent to discuss their funding mechanisms and programs. They provide sports programs for over 2400 participants with NO TAX DOLLARS whatsoever. The program fees, etc. pay for their programs. Their per participant cost is just under $92 - while ours is twice that amount, for a far lesser number of participants. What's wrong with this picture?
Plus, former Park & Rec Board member, Joe Kahl, is hauling Bill Witt around with him, making presentations to individual Village Council members in an effort to forge his own recreation programs and district. He says he was told to use this procedure by Village Mayor Bushong. Please remember - Mr. Kahl is not a member of the current Park & Rec board. These efforts are his own, personal attempt to create a new recreation entity. Anyone else find that just a bit odd??
And speaking of Park & Rec, what are those line items in the treasurer's report that list medical and retirement benefits? Why is the school district paying for medical and retirement benefiits for anyone on Park & Rec? My email to Cheryl Swisher on that question hasn't been answered yet.
A question from Drew Stambaugh to Dennis Heban made me think there might be a slightly better way to conduct our meetings. I wrote a note suggesting that our Board president make a short statement clarifying what our "Old" or "Unfinished" business on the agenda was all about prior to our discussion on it. I also thought it might be helpful to repeat any questions from the public, so that all in attendance could hear, prior to giving an answer. I opined that these two things would also be helpful for when we record our meetings, so those listening from home could get a clearer picture of what was happening, and it could also help us Board members as we might look back to a prior recorded meeting. I probably wrote 3 or 4 paragraphs. Dennis Heban wrote back to remind me that no vote had been taken as to whether or not we were going to record our meetings. It had only been a suggestion at our organizational meeting, with no vote taken.
*sigh*
In checking with the Ohio Revised Code, and consulting with an attorney, I find there is no regulation prohibiting me from recording the meetings myself and then podcasting them on my own personal blog. Mark Bula did that with Sylvania Council - the public loved it so much that Council took it over. I think our Swanton school district residents deserve no less. So later this week, I'm going to head over to Circuit City to purchase a digital recorder.
Tighten your chin strap!
At our February Board meeting, a gentlemen stood and said he had heard "rumors" that the Honors Classes were being eliminated from Freshman and Sophomore levels. He spoke at length of his opinion that these classes should NOT be removed. When he finished, President Dennis Heban thanked him for his comments, and moved on.
Here's what's happening: High school assistant principal, Steve Gfell, is doing some in-depth investigating on how best to educate our students. He is putting a lot of time and effort into his research, and one item he is investigating is just how honors classes affect students' opportunities after they leave high school. His research is not complete, and therefore no suggestion or recommendation has been given to the Board. However, there is one particular teacher who is unhappy that the question is being raised, and is trying to pre-empt Mr. Gfell's efforts by spreading half-truths about the situation.
I encourage any resident who has questions about the honors classes or other high school issues to contact Mrs. Baz and Mr. Gfell directly before forming an opinion. These are top notch administrators, and you may trust what they tell you.
Recently, we received notice that there is a danger our electricity bills could increase by 30-40% next January. The Energy for Education II program will expire on December 31st of this year. FirstEnergy (Toledo Edison, etc) has already indicated that it wishes to remove all price breaks for schools and treat them, instead, as corporations. Swanton Local Schools currently pays around $200,000 annually for our electric bill. If FirstEnergy has its way, that could increase $60-$80,000! Obviously no school district can absorb that kind of increase. The PUCO is holding hearings this year on the subject, and our treasurer plans to attend.
In addition, we received an odd letter from the Swanton Education Association (SEA) that ended with a disturbing, vaguely threatening ending. It stated, "If we do not hear from the Board of Education in regards to this matter, we will explore other avenues to get our contract concerns settled." In checking with our treasurer, the process on the 2007-2008 negotiated contract had been going on for this past year - with the SEA holding it up for over 6 months. We had only just received it for final typing, etc. when their note arrived. Very strange. However, I believe this issue has now been smoothed over, and the SEA has indicated they are interested in meeting with the School Board to improve communication between the two entities. Dennis Heban is willing to meet with them if they include our superintendent, treasurer, and administrators as well.
Things are heating up further on the Park & Rec issue. Jeff Michael had an extended conversation with the Anthony Wayne district equivalent to discuss their funding mechanisms and programs. They provide sports programs for over 2400 participants with NO TAX DOLLARS whatsoever. The program fees, etc. pay for their programs. Their per participant cost is just under $92 - while ours is twice that amount, for a far lesser number of participants. What's wrong with this picture?
Plus, former Park & Rec Board member, Joe Kahl, is hauling Bill Witt around with him, making presentations to individual Village Council members in an effort to forge his own recreation programs and district. He says he was told to use this procedure by Village Mayor Bushong. Please remember - Mr. Kahl is not a member of the current Park & Rec board. These efforts are his own, personal attempt to create a new recreation entity. Anyone else find that just a bit odd??
And speaking of Park & Rec, what are those line items in the treasurer's report that list medical and retirement benefits? Why is the school district paying for medical and retirement benefiits for anyone on Park & Rec? My email to Cheryl Swisher on that question hasn't been answered yet.
A question from Drew Stambaugh to Dennis Heban made me think there might be a slightly better way to conduct our meetings. I wrote a note suggesting that our Board president make a short statement clarifying what our "Old" or "Unfinished" business on the agenda was all about prior to our discussion on it. I also thought it might be helpful to repeat any questions from the public, so that all in attendance could hear, prior to giving an answer. I opined that these two things would also be helpful for when we record our meetings, so those listening from home could get a clearer picture of what was happening, and it could also help us Board members as we might look back to a prior recorded meeting. I probably wrote 3 or 4 paragraphs. Dennis Heban wrote back to remind me that no vote had been taken as to whether or not we were going to record our meetings. It had only been a suggestion at our organizational meeting, with no vote taken.
*sigh*
In checking with the Ohio Revised Code, and consulting with an attorney, I find there is no regulation prohibiting me from recording the meetings myself and then podcasting them on my own personal blog. Mark Bula did that with Sylvania Council - the public loved it so much that Council took it over. I think our Swanton school district residents deserve no less. So later this week, I'm going to head over to Circuit City to purchase a digital recorder.
Tighten your chin strap!
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Things Are Not Adding Up
I apologize for devoting so much 'space' to this Park & Rec issue, but this thing really has me buffaloed. Board members received copies of a 2-page "Financial Detail Report" from Cheryl Swisher, for fiscal year 7/2006 to 6/2007 related to P&R. This is how it reads:
Total for #190 (Other Personal Services): $28,878.00
Total for #213 (Social Security-Cert.): $406.43
Total for #220 (Retirement - Noncertificated): $4,042.92
Total for #229 (Other Noncertificated Retire): $1,601.02
Total for #251 (Medical/Hospitalization-Noncrt): $285.08
Total for #252 (Life - Noncert.): $0.87 (you read it right!)
Total for #253 (Dental - Noncert.): $18.55
Total for #260 (Insurance - Wrkrs Comp/Disabil): $500.00
(pg 2) Grand Total: $35,732.87
I have to ask Cheryl, but I think the numbers refer to account numbers.
Beyond that, where is the breakdown for that huge "Other Personal Services"? According to a list we received, a total of $21,850 is spent on directors' salaries. Some is paid for referees and umpires . . . what is making up the difference here??
There were also hourly positions listed: Soccer Spring field maintenance @$8; Concession help @$8; Baseball field maintenance @$8; Football field maintenance @$8; Soccer field maintenance @$8; and Arts & Crafts help @$10 per hour. I do not have a total of what these hourly people were paid in fiscal year 2006-07.
I just learned that Village Council requires any expenditure of their monies by P&R to be run past them first for approval. Has that happened at the School Board level as well?
Pam Moore of Village Council has reminded us that the physical parks are all owned and maintained by the Village. If Swanton had no recreation programs, these parks would still be maintained. The levy money through the school district is for the programs only.
Does $58,000 to $60,000 of taxpayer money sound like a lot to run sports programs? This is not including the money generated from fees, concession sales, etc.
What's wrong with this picture??
Total for #190 (Other Personal Services): $28,878.00
Total for #213 (Social Security-Cert.): $406.43
Total for #220 (Retirement - Noncertificated): $4,042.92
Total for #229 (Other Noncertificated Retire): $1,601.02
Total for #251 (Medical/Hospitalization-Noncrt): $285.08
Total for #252 (Life - Noncert.): $0.87 (you read it right!)
Total for #253 (Dental - Noncert.): $18.55
Total for #260 (Insurance - Wrkrs Comp/Disabil): $500.00
(pg 2) Grand Total: $35,732.87
I have to ask Cheryl, but I think the numbers refer to account numbers.
Beyond that, where is the breakdown for that huge "Other Personal Services"? According to a list we received, a total of $21,850 is spent on directors' salaries. Some is paid for referees and umpires . . . what is making up the difference here??
There were also hourly positions listed: Soccer Spring field maintenance @$8; Concession help @$8; Baseball field maintenance @$8; Football field maintenance @$8; Soccer field maintenance @$8; and Arts & Crafts help @$10 per hour. I do not have a total of what these hourly people were paid in fiscal year 2006-07.
I just learned that Village Council requires any expenditure of their monies by P&R to be run past them first for approval. Has that happened at the School Board level as well?
Pam Moore of Village Council has reminded us that the physical parks are all owned and maintained by the Village. If Swanton had no recreation programs, these parks would still be maintained. The levy money through the school district is for the programs only.
Does $58,000 to $60,000 of taxpayer money sound like a lot to run sports programs? This is not including the money generated from fees, concession sales, etc.
What's wrong with this picture??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
