Rockwood School District Parents Need to Know How Their Tax Dollars are Being Spent

Here is an editorial by Bill McClellan of the St. Louis Post Dispatch about $250,000 being spent on "education" in the Rockwood School District, located in the metro St. Louis area. This "education" expenditure is to pay consultants a rather large sum of money and some additional expense from the district to these consultants in creating two-fulltime jobs for them:

Elizabethe Holland of the Post-Dispatch wrote a devastating story in Sunday's newspaper. She explained how you hired two former colleagues from the Minnesota district at which you used to work. First, you hired them as consultants. They each made $30,600 for 17 days of consulting while holding down full-time jobs in Minnesota. As consultants, they concluded that what the Rockwood district really needed was two more highly-paid administrators — themselves.

Although the district is facing financial problems, you hired them. They start next month. One will make $138,000 as associate superintendent of learning. He was making $97,200 in Minnesota. The other will make $125,000 as executive director of learning and support services. She was making $79,958 in Minnesota.

How can the $250,000 for this expenditure happen when it was not allotted? Welcome to the method of governmental groups obtaining what they want via the back door:

Rockwood's relationship with the two came about thanks to a $250,000 fund the School Board quietly allocated to (Superintendent) Borchers in September to pay for consultants and other needs while transitioning into his new role as a first-time superintendent.The money was approved at a meeting without discussion.

NOT ON THE AGENDA

The board voted Sept. 2 to take the $250,000 from the district's operating fund "for superintendent contingency items," according to district records. But the $250,000 wasn't noted on the board's main meeting agenda. Rather, the topic was listed as a "consent agenda item" in another board document and voted on as a 2011 "budget adjustment."

Consent agenda items typically involve noncontroversial board business that requires no discussion before passage. If a board member wants to discuss an item, it can be pulled from the consent agenda and discussed at a board meeting.

The $250,000 allotment was not pulled from the consent agenda and was approved without discussion, district spokeswoman Kim Cranston said.

Rockwood does not have a dollar limit on items that can be approved by consent agenda, she said.

Do Rockwood taxpayers believe this is a transparent method in spending taxpayer dollars? Is this an expense the district can afford in the current economic climate? Read on:

In December 2010, about three months after setting aside the $250,000 for Borchers' use, the district announced it would have to cut $5.3 million to balance its 2011-12 budget, partly through staff reductions and salary freezes for administrators and support staff.

Six middle school teachers, 10 counselors, four drivers education teachers and three parking attendants at high schools lost their jobs. Rockwood also decided it would increase kindergarten tuition, high school parking fees and admission to sporting events to raise revenue.

The district's financial woes remain far from over. This coming fiscal year, Rockwood expects a deficit of $6 million to $16 million, according to Cranston.

Rockwood taxpayers might want to start asking more questions at school board meetings and examining the method of the way of doing business with this Board. Fiscal responsibility is paramount in our current economic times. If Rockwood parents are concerned about the way their tax dollars are being spent, it is time to get a game plan to watch expenses more closely. (See below for the next Board meeting schedule.) Your superintendent believes he is making the correct decisions and makes no excuses for spending money the district it doesn't have for jobs created in a questionable manner:

Borchers said he had heard few concerns about the money he was given for consultants.

"Let's just say we spent $180,000," he said, defending its use. "You could equate that to three teachers."

But, he said, using that money instead to hire Smasal, Dubois and Solution Tree could "help create this conceptual framework for continuous improvement that affects 22,000 students, 1,600 teachers and other support staff."

"That's the hat I have to wear," he said of his decision. "But what I'm charged with is making that strategic plan come to life and to achieve it. And I believe what we're doing with those dollars was spent ... professionally on things that will lead us to increased student achievement."

How much is that increased student achievement going to cost the district? That would be a good question to ask the superintendent. You need to know your expenses in your own life, you might want to hold your superintendent to the same method of balancing school budgets and not spending money the district it doesn't have.

From a commenter:

The next BOE meeting is NOT on July 14 – It's THIS Saturday, June 25 at 8:00am at the Rockwood School District Administrative Center, 111 East North Street, Eureka. This is a Board of Governance Meeting , open to the public. There is a 5 minute closed session that will reconvene at 8:10am to an open session.
Agenda items include the Board’s Role in Superintendent’s Evaluation, the Board’s Role in CSIP Development and Oversight, and the Board’s Role in Budget Development and Oversight. The full agenda can be seen at:
http://www.boarddocs.com/mo/rsdpa/Board.nsf/Public

I urge all concerned taxpayers and parents in the Rockwood District to attend this meeting.

• Delete Comment
• Feature Comment
• Add Moderators Note

Civics Lesson for the Day in Wisconsin: Teachers Call in Sick (but feel well enough to protest) and Democratic Legislators Run Away.

If you need a reason to want to reform education and to reduce the power of the unions over public education, just read the following articles here and here. They report on the 25,000 public education teachers who have not reported to work and brought students to protest the Wisconsin governor's budget proposals. Schools have had to close because of this "sickout".

Is this action "for the kids" or is it for the preservation of a system that is no longer financially sustainable? From "Have Teacher Unions Nuked the Fridge":

Furthermore, taking the kids out of classes to march with them underscores another significant concern of the public regarding education. Most of the students marching with their teachers had no idea of the finer points of Governor Scott Walker’s proposal to bring teacher pension contributions in line with the private sector, a position the union called “slavery” just a couple of months before conceding the point. Nor do they understand the budget gap that Walker faces, or the nuances of economic policy, tax burdens, and growth policies. All they know is what their teachers told them — and that speaks to political indoctrination conducted in public schools by activist teachers, and the inability of parents and communities to weed out inappropriate politicking in classrooms.

Thirty years ago, the public saw teachers as underpaid and overworked professionals trying to prepare the next generation for leadership. These days, the teachers unions are doing their best to present an image of arrogant entitlement combined with an inability to withstand scrutiny and accountability. When that $40 million failed to rescue Democrats from their midterm debacle, it may well have been a nuke-the-fridge moment that brought a dawning realization of the political albatross that teachers unions have become.

When Governor Walker attempts to do the job he was hired to do (reduce the budget so his state can pay its bills) and presents it to the Wisconsin legislature, what do the Democratic legislators do? They act as petulant as the union members and....disappear so a vote can't be taken (from "Dems on the Run: Wisconsin Senators to Leave Illinois for an Undisclosed Location"):

In a telephone interview, Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) said he was upholding the rights of workers and the democratic process. He declined to give his location but acknowledged that at least one other Democrat was with him. He said that law enforcement would be able to compel him and his members to the Senate floor if they are located in Wisconsin.

“I can tell you this – we’re not all in one place,” Miller said. “This is a watershed moment unlike any that we have experienced in our political lifetimes. The people have shown that the government has gone too far . . .  We are prepared to do what is necessary to make sure that this bill gets the consideration it needs.”

The fleeing Democrats have been located in Illinois. Is this the type of behavior the state of Wisconsin deserves from its Democratic politicians in making important budget decisions? Senator Miller states "he was upholding the rights of workers" by fleeing the state capitol so discussion and a vote could not take place.

What happened to the rights of the taxpayers who are paying these public sector workers? These public sector employees are shirking their professional duties as teachers. When you hear unions saying "it's all for the children", think back on this display of pushback from the teachers union. How is this reforming education and providing a good educational foundation for public school children?

These teachers need to go back to school and study accounting: when a state is operating in a deficit, it needs to cut costs and job benefits need to be adjusted and some jobs may be eliminated. Welcome to the real world. When a private company doesn't make a profit, changes must be made or the company may cease its business operations. This is the hard lesson public sector employees are learning that private sector employees have known and keep in mind as they make business plans and budgets.

The Democratic legislators need to understand they must make decisions to benefit the state as a whole, not to protect public sector employees at the expense of the private sector. Running away so the debate and vote can't occur? Oh, please. Elected officials are supposed to be statesmen/women, not mouthpieces for special interests.

Lesson of the Day for DESE. It's a Doozy.

The new state senators and representatives were sworn in today and here is a video and link about the issues in education funding facing these legislators. One senator said:

"It's going to be a challenge," said Sen. Victor Callahan, an Independence Democrat.

"We'll have to make a lot of cuts in different areas." Callahan, the Senate minority leader, said the state probably won't be able to fully fund classrooms as required by state law.

This last sentence is particularly important and expresses the gravity of the financial situation the Legislature is facing. The Legislature is mandated by law to balance the budget, even in poor financial years.

What is DESE's view on the budget shortfall? It's quite stunning:

In its funding request to Nixon's budget office, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education sought state money to fill the hole left by the federal stimulus money, plus a $255 million increase to fully fund the school aid formula.

This is a fascinating request from Chris Nicastro. DESE wants the state to fill a federal money hole created by one time stimulus funds and another $255 million the state doesn't have. I didn't read anything about DESE employing budget cutting measures and working within reality.

The legislators have a tough job making cuts and it's difficult to believe DESE is actually asking for additional funds that don't exist. Legislators have a duty to produce a workable budget. They are not magicians and they don't print money.

That's the lesson of the day for DESE.

Chris Christie and the Missouri Legislature Discover the Bad News--There is No Money.

Chris Christie understands economic reality. Speaking about the rail project he had to cancel:

“We don’t have the money,” Christie explains, “we literally don’t have the money.”

Our state legislators may have realized we financially can't afford the goals set forth in the new educational plan "Educated Citizenry 2020". According to the Missourian, there is recognition from the committee these goals may be financially unattainable at this time:

On Friday, the Missouri Senate's Educated Citizenry 2020 Committee produced a report setting forth some ambitious goals to improve the quality of public education offered to Missouri residents. But the committee chairman acknowledged there probably is no money to carry out some of the initiatives — at least not in the next few years.

Pay raises, new programs and expanded government services all have become a rarity in recent years — replaced by layoffs and spending cuts as state officials have patched together budgets with federal economic stimulus funds and falling state sales and income taxes collections.

That federal stimulus money is about to run out. And tax revenues, though finally showing signs of growth, remain far below the levels of just a few years ago. Gov. Jay Nixon's administration is projecting a $500 million to $700 million shortfall for the fiscal year that begins July 1 — a gap equal to almost 10 percent of the state's general revenues.

As we wrote about in our previous piece about these new proposals, citizens should be asking the following questions to the legislators:

• What is the total cost of the program?
  
• If there are unfunded/underfunded mandates in this program, how will these be addressed in this climate of budget cutting in the state?
• How does this plan promote smaller government?
• How does this plan promote more local control?
• Does this plan promote more parental rights and involvement?
• How are charter schools considered a viable alternative as they will operate under the same mandates as traditional public schools?

If the goals are determined to be financially impossible at this time, perhaps the discussion should center around the validity of the goals themselves.

Is this a Lesson in Hypocrisy from the American Federation of Teachers?

The Washington Examiner reports the head of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, has an issue with a government panel dealing with budgetary concerns...but not with her own financial situation:

American Federation of Teachers president Rhonda “Randi” Weingarten has issued a statement slamming proposed cuts from the congressional deficit commission for not pushing shared sacrifice among the wealthy, but an AFT spokesman has told The Examiner that Weingarten will not be taking a paycut from the total $428,284 she received in salary and benefits during fiscal year 2010.

It's easy enough not to sacrifice any of your paycheck and benefits when it is funded by union members' dues whose salaries are paid by taxpayers. Are you weary of the call to "shared sacrifice" that isn't shared by any of the parties calling upon the sacrifice? Is this what we call leadership?

Here is an piece chronicling Obama's vision vs. the Christie Principle which provides a clear contrast of calling others to "shared sacrifice" but excusing yourself from financial hardship. Christie addresses this idea of 'sacrifice":

At all times, and especially during a difficult economy, it is unfair for those who run government, and those who receive paychecks from government, to exempt themselves from the difficult financial decisions that other private citizens are required to make.

The "sacrifice" is more like a shell game. As the Examiner article states:

The lesson from the teachers union is clear: Shared sacrifice for thee and not for me.