With $11.22 million surplus, TPS doesn't need levy but must do performance audit

The Toledo Public School Board may reduce its planned levy request after 'discovering' a surplus of $8.58 million more than expected.

Note that the $8.58 million is just the amount that is more than expected. They had expected a surplus of $2.64 million - but now they find out that the actual amount of extra funds is $11.22 million.

If my review of their last audit report and their management letter (which details here and here even more troubling information than the audit) weren't enough to get you to demand a performance audit, this discovery of 425% more surplus than expected should!

So now they think they don't need a new, permanent 6.9 mill levy ... according to what Treasurer Matt Cleland told the Toledo Blade editorial board (not the public, mind you - or even the TPS board, but the newspaper!), the TPS Board members will be presented a range of tax hikes to consider.

Since the 6.9 mill levy is projected to generate $18.5 million per year and TPS now has $11.22 million in extra funds, why put a levy on the ballot at all? If we are to believe the reasons for the 'unexpected' surplus, they clearly have no clue when it comes to their finances.

The surplus was attributed to three main sources, Mr. Cleland said. Possibly the biggest factor was that fewer students left for charter schools or applied for private school vouchers than projected, leading to about $3.7 million more in state funds than TPS or the Ohio Department of Education calculated.

The other two sources came from reduced costs: the switch to K-8 buildings from elementary and middle schools saved about $1 million more in salary than expected, and a new health-care plan accepted in negotiations by the district's unions also significantly reduced costs.

So the treasurer had no idea that fewer students had left for charter school or applied for private school vouchers? Isn't that something that is determined in October? And shouldn't you know the fiscal impact of your attendance before the end of the year?!? How could the additional funds based upon the number of children enrolled NOT be known and anticipated since the system should clearly know the number of students it's had over the year?

The salary savings from switching to K-8 schools should also have been calculated and shouldn't be a surprise. You know the number of staff you had in the separate buildings and you know the way you're staffing the combined grades. Why was the treasurer surprised by this?

These two 'unexpected' numbers total $4.7 million. So that means the new health care plan in the union contracts resulted in savings of $3.88 million.

Let me repeat that: the new health care plan in the union contracts resulted in savings of $3.88 million. This is good news and kudos to the union and the school board for agreeing to the provisions that saved taxpayers that much money. But how did the district not know what the savings would be? I can understand not having a definite number, but shouldn't they have known it would have been between a certain range so they could plan for the savings?!? How did they even enter into negotiations for the new health plan without knowing the fiscal impact?!?

This just astounds me - the complete and utter lack of fiscal knowledge of how various actions impact the budget. No wonder they think they need 'more, more, more' all the time.

Here's the other key point: these 'unexpected' savings can't be for just this year only.

If the switch to K-8 schools cost them $1 million less than they planned, they can deduct $1 million off their budget for next year (and future years) as a result. The savings due to reduced salaries from combining schools should continue.

The same goes for the health plan savings of $3.88 million. If that was the surprise amount for this year, it makes sense that they can deduct that amount from next year's costs as well.

If I am correct that they take attendance for state funding in October, then they should also be able to predict their Dept. of Education funding before the end of this calendar year.

Total them up and these 'unexpected' savings mean that future budgets can be reduced by at least $4.88 million (health plans and K-8 combination schools) and maybe more if they keep this year's students.

The 6.9 mill levy is supposed to give them $18.5 million per year. They've got $11.22 million extra this year that they can apply to the 2012-13 school budget. They also have another $4.88 million in yearly savings they can apply. That would leave them $2.4 million short of what they've told us they need.

Are you really going to believe any TPS board member or official if they tell you they can't find $2.4 million in savings out of a more than $320 million budget? As they like to say about their levy demands, that's only .75%. Maybe if they did a performance audit they could find savings of a full 1%...

TPS doesn't need a levy this year, and their inability to have a clean audit and know what their budget actually is proves they don't deserve more money. They can withdraw the levy request completely.

As they go into this coming school year, they can do a performance audit to see where they might be able to find other savings. They should do a complete, comprehensive performance audit and exempt nothing from examination.

Then, after learning how much can be saved from revised operations and changes in policy/management, if they still need money, they can ask for it - and be in a better position of making their case to the public.

This is what the TPS board should do, but sadly, I doubt they will.

Follow up on TPS and Toledo budget discussion from WSPD

Yesterday while filling in for Brian Wilson on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD, we talked quite a bit about the Toledo Public School's .75% payroll income tax ballot issue as well as the City of Toledo's budget deficit and Mayor Mike Bell's plans for addressing the $48 million shortfall.

I'm not happy with some of the things being said about cuts or the additional taxation being suggesting, but I am very pleased to see the outreach Mayor Bell is doing - with both the community and the media.

As I finished the show last night, I encouraged everyone to call (419-245-1001) or write the Mayor and let him know what YOUR priorities are for the budget. Please don't call and tell him what NOT to cut - every group out there will tell him not to cut their pet project or funding line item. But he wants your input and, as citizens, we are obligated to provide it.

Now there's an easy way for you to provide direction to city officials: The Future of Toledo. (H/T Chris Myers at SwampBubbles)

From the website:

In order to stay in control of our city and avoid bankruptcy, we will balance our budget. To do this, we are bringing together citizens, leaders, experts, and stakeholder groups. Our task is to review the current deficit, innovate "out-of-the-box" solutions, and prepare a budget proposal by March 1st. Review the information below, provide your input, and join us in getting our city healthy so that we can move from problems to possibilities.

1. READ Mayor Bell's letter.

2. VOTE on 50+ Budget Balancing Ideas worth over $25m.

3. CONTRIBUTE your Budget Balancing Ideas. Tell us what you think.

4. LEARN more about the budget process.

5. INVITE download the flyer and share with everyone.
(links are provided with each of the numbered items)

Most importantly, they have budget balancing ideas you can vote on and information about the budget process. They also have a Facebook page and Twitter account you can join.

I hope you'll all take advantage of this wonderful opportunity!

***

We talked to Michael Maurer of the Ohio Citizens Accounting Standards Board about their April 15th Project to put checkbook and wages of all major taxing jurisdictions, including schools, on line.

Since TPS wants more money from us, it's our responsibility to educate ourselves about their finances.

This epitomizes what's wrong with Toledo

In today's Blade, the editorial board addresses the issue of the Toledo Public School income tax proposal that will be on the May ballot. In doing so, it epitomizes exactly what's wrong with this area.

They are correct that TPS needs to answer questions about their finances, but the questions The Blade wants answered are the wrong ones. They want to focus on what the schools will have to go without if they don't get more of our money. They should be more worried about what the taxpayers will have to go without if another government entity gets even more of our limited funds.

The school district needs to show parents and other voters, in grim particularity, how the district would have to cut its budget without the new revenue the tax would raise.

Really? They're suggesting that TPS board members scare the voters in order to get a tax passed. But they don't just suggest it - they come right out and say the voters should be threatened:

But unless voters feel threatened - unless they are convinced that the failure of the tax measure would make things unacceptably worse for themselves and for the pupils who attend city schools - they will vote no. That shouldn't be so hard to understand.

And not just once:

The district doesn't want to scare voters? If it wants its tax, it had better.

This is just unbelievable! Or, perhaps, it's completely believable as the only tactic that will work.

But what does it say about The Blade and the elected board members if the only way you can gain support for a proposal is through threats, intimidation and scare tactics?

They write that an emotional appeal won't work - yet fear is an emotion and they are actually recommending what they then dismiss. Where's the logic in that?

The Blade admits that things are tough all over. And they're right. But the solution isn't to badger and coerce voters into making it even tougher for themselves. The solution is to cut government spending so people have more of their own funds to spend.

Wealth in a community is not created by confiscating private funds for government spending.

The real questions the paper should be asking are all about TPS spending and why they're spending more than all but one other school district in the county and still need more. Where are the in-depth examinations of the finances of the system? Where are the investigative reports? Where are the tough questions for school board members and administrators about the (alleged) theft by a former administrator and how TPS has - or has not - changed their internal policies to prevent such actions in the future?

I guess it's just so much easier to tell TPS their best approach is to browbeat and bully voters than to actually expect them to share what's going on in the TPS checkbook. Of course, if we knew how TPS spent our money, we'd probably be less likely to give them any more. And if that's a possibility, no wonder plan is intimidation.

Has The Blade ever met a tax it didn't like? I don't recall, but it seems like every tax hike or additional government spending that's been presented in the last 15 years has had their support.

And now the city and TPS both want more and the editorial board thinks you should be bludgeoned into giving it to them. No wonder The Blade's lead story today says "U.S. ranks Toledo as nation's 8th-most impoverished."

UPDATED: Prediction for TPS Board of Education

While I said this about a week ago in an email, I decided I wanted to share it with all of you.

I predict that Bob Vasquez will be named the new member of the Toledo Public Schools Board of Education, replacing Robert Torres who resigned when he took a new job out of town.

My predication is based upon his previous appointments by Jack Ford to various boards, the comment from TPS board president Steven Steel that he was looking for someone with board experience, and his 'affiliation' with A-Teamers of the local Democratic Party who constitute the majority of the board. It is NOT based upon any inside knowledge of the preferences of the board members.

While I believe there are a couple of others who would make excellent board members and provide a diversity of thought, I think Bob will get the nod.

The board meets at 7:30 to make/announce their decision.

UPDATE: I was right!

TPS Board has lost sight of their duty

According to this article in The Blade, the Toledo Public School board wants to make sure that the banks and financial institutions they do business with have proper diversity programs.

Excuse me? Since when did it become the role of the TPS Board to monitor, supervise or direct the employment practices of financial institutions? Answer: it didn't.

Unfortunately, for the public and the students, the board seems more interested in such social issues than they do the students they're supposed to be serving.

To say that they're wasting their time would be charitable. Ohio law requires the board to take the highest interest rates for their investments. If a bank without any 'diversity program' offers a rate of 5% and bank with a 'fantastic' (in the eyes of the school board members) diversity program offers a rate of 4%, the diversity program doesn't matter one iota. The board has to take the 5% rate.

So why in the world are the board members and staff of Toledo Public Schools meeting with banks in order to examine their diversity programs? You'd think they had enough problems to focus upon considering our test scores, schools in academic emergency for over five years, financial issues and looming contract negotiations.

The data being requested from the banks are public information that the district has requested at least twice before — May, 1998, and November, 2002.

It's not clear how the district has used the information in the past.

The board now proposes to amend contracts with the banks to include a yearly reporting schedule of this information.

Do not think for one minute that the banks are not aware of the implied threat of these meetings and the possible inclusion of this clause in future contracts.

This borders on extortion - do what we want in terms of diversity or risk that we'll find a way around the law to penalize you by withdrawing 'our' money if you don't. (Forgetting, of course that the TPS money doesn't belong to the board, but rather to the people of the district.)

So even though the board has no authority in this area, they're going to try and exert influence on a social issue - and one that has no relevance to their duties and responsibilities to provide a quality education for the district.

This is part of what's wrong with this area - we elect people to fulfill specific responsibilities and then allow them to use the power of their office to try and effect social policy changes in unrelated areas. The truly sad part of this is that many in the community will praise them for what they're doing.

TPS should stop focusing on diversity programs of banks and start worrying about how they're going to improve test scores - which is what they promised to do.

Related: Tim at Just Blowing Smoke has a great post on the educational system in general. While it doesn't address this topic, it has some points which are certainly more important that the diversity programs of banks who hold TPS funds.

TPS levies

Today Toledo Public School Board members voted to put a renewal levy on the March 4th primary ballot.

As a renewal, it will collect the same amount in taxes as it currently does. It's 6.5 mills (effective rate of 3.8 mills) and would expire at the end of this year with collections ending at the end of 2008. It provides about $16 million per year to TPS and costs a $100,000 home about $117 per year.

We'll be discussing this tonight on Eye On Toledo, so I thought you'd like to see all the TPS levies that you currently pay:

Total TPS levies: 63.50 mills voted (28.08 effective rate)
* 44.80 mills is a continuous levy and is not voted upon
* 6.50 mills General (this is the one they voted to renew in March)
* 4.90 mills General (emergency levy approved in November 2004 - expires in 2008 and will stop being collected in 2009)
* 2.50 mills Permanent Improvement (defeated May 2005 as a substitute levy, passed in November 2005 - expires in 2009 and will stop being collected in 2010)
* 4.30 mills Construction Bonds (expires in 2029 with collections ending in 2030)
* 0.50 mills Classrooms (expires in 2024 with collections ending in 2025)

(cross posted on Eye On Toledo blog)

Sometimes I hate to be right

As predicted in this post about Jack Ford's idea to make COSI into a science/math school, The Blade has jumped all over the idea as a viable option to keeping the failing venture open.

While it's true that they'd rather have this remain a museum in the downtown area, they're basically giving the elected officials the go-ahead on the idea. Which means that you'll see the TPS school board, the mayor and the county commissioners 'uniting' to figure out how to make it happen. Never mind that voters don't want their taxes spent on this ... it's obviously more important to keep The Blade happy than it is the voters.

The Blade says they don't want another shuttered building downtown. I can't help but wonder if it ever occurred to them to actually sell the building to a private developer and let the private market take responsibility for making it into a successful venture ... especially when you consider that neither the city nor TPS have a good track record on such projects.

I hate it when I'm right on these kinds of things.

A Job Description for Board of Education

One of the most frustrating things for me, as an elected official, was when people would call me up and tell me how much they agreed with the position I'd taken, how much they supported my efforts on an issue and how they thought I was on the right path. However, being in the minority, I would always ask if they'd be willing to stand with me on the issue. Invariably, the answer was no. They were willing for me to take a stand, and willing to let me know they agreed with me, but they weren't willing to offer themselves - or their support - in public.

I understand why many took such a position, but always felt that until such individuals were willing to make public their private convictions, the area would not move forward.

About three months ago, I was approached by several individuals who were frustrated with the Toledo Public Schools and the Board of Education. Some of these people had been 'fighting the good fight' with the school system for a long time...others only recently reached a level of frustration that sparked their involvement. What was different about these people was their willingness to publicly pronounce their dissatisfaction and to take the next step to become politically involved in electing individuals who would be more accountable to the taxpayers, parents and children.

They asked me if I would join them in their efforts, lending my successful campaigning experiences to their group. I was impressed with the dedication they showed, their willingness to step forward and their commitment to a good school board member and not to any special interests. So I said yes.

This group doesn't have a name, it doesn't have a leader, but it does have a mission: to elect two new school board members this fall. The group has people from all walks of life - business, community groups, teachers, parents. It has no political bent - there are Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Who we are, or what party we belong to, is not important within this group because we share a common goal of excellence in our school board and we're all willing to set aside our partisan or social or philosophical differences in order to achieve this objective.

Lisa Renee of Glass City Jungle is also a member and has her own post...asked to join because of her extensive experience in blogging and internet outreach. Together, today we are announcing our reasons for joining our fellow citizens in this endeavor and are inviting those of you who may share in this goal to join us.

The most critical thing that any group can do is to define what they are trying to accomplish. While this citizen group has many interests, we wanted to all be on the same page when it came to supporting individuals for the school board. So we developed a job description for TPS School Board Member.

Interestingly, there wasn't one available, despite the many responsibilities. We enhanced the job description by creating a list of characteristics or attributes we all believed would be ideal in a candidate. We realize that one person may not have everything on our list or all the qualifications we seek, but creating the list and the job description gives us the starting point for making a good decision about whom we should back in the upcoming election. The job description and list are available here.

To have any group of 30-40 agree on a job description may seem unlikely, but we did. We approached this from the perspective of hiring a person to do a job for us and before we got into the hiring aspect, we had to clearly define the job to ensure the candidate would meet the needs. We want you to look at the job description and see if you agree.

We've invited all the known candidates for school board to answer a simple questionnaire and to interview with several individuals for an endorsement. With our endorsement comes volunteers, fundraising, campaign strategy, coordinated p.r., introductions within our various realms of participation (clubs/organizations/etc) and other campaign support, including research on the various issues facing TPS.

Our first public event is a fundraiser Friday, April 13, 2007 from 6:00-9:00 p.m. at the The Distillery - 4311 Heatherdowns Blvd. The suggested donation of $20 includes: a coupon for a 16 oz draft beer, unlimited soft drinks, wings, pizza, veggies, and other snack foods. Additional draft beer is $1; imported or domestic beer and mixed drinks will be available at regular prices.

If you'd like to know more about this unique group, or see who's involved, please join us on the 13th...and stay turned to ThurbersThoughts and GlassCityJungle for updates.

Is TPS Board hamstrung?

This article in today's Blade has an interesting point to consider.

The article is about the potential salary that the TPS Board can pay a new superintendent. Basically, the story relates that there is an agreement between the Board and the unions saying that the new superintendent cannot be paid more than Dr. Sanders was - at least until the unions get a raise.

Now, I understand the logic of this agreement. If I were a member of the unions, I'd be urging my union leaders to stay strong on this issue. In fact, David McClellan, president of the Toledo Association of Administrative Personnel, said, "They will not be able to pay him more than [Mr.] Sanders, and we are not budging on that." Fran Lawrence, president of the Toledo Federation of Teachers, was more diplomatic in saying she's "willing to have an open mind about it and enter into discussions with board members."

Now, you may ask, what's the interesting point? What I find so interesting is that the unions have ANY negotiating ability regarding the wages, terms and conditions of employment for someone who is not a member of their union.

I don't blame these unions for seeking such authority or negotiating power. I blame the administration and the board for ceding this right. The first time that the union mentioned the superintendent's salary, they should have been told that they don't represent the superintendent and that his wages were a matter for the Board - not for negotiations with them.

I understand having an agreement about increases in general - saying that if one segment of employees gets a raise, then all employees would get their raises. However, hiring a new superintendent is a different matter. The salary for this position was advertised and the Board should be able to offer wages within that range - without interference from the unions.

If this isn't possible because of the memorandums of understanding that have been signed by administrators and not voted on by the board, then the board needs to hold such administrators responsible for tying their hands in such onerous ways.

Those who flee TPS are sending a very loud message - is anyone listening?

This article in today's Blade has raised many questions for me.

It's about parents deciding to enroll their children in TPS schools that are in academic emergency just so they can qualify for vouchers. And there are several things very concerning about this.

One - what does it say about parents' perception of the Toledo Public School system that they're willing to risk the education of their children by putting them - even temporarily - in a failing school so that they can, in the long run, permanently leave the school system? And this is an issue that's more than just 'perception' that needs to be changed by some advertising campaign.

Two - what does it say about our school leaders that they refuse to acknowledge the problem and instead see this as some conspiracy against urban school systems? Interim Superintendent Foley said this was "...just another way for the state to harm urban schools..." As if the entire goal of the voucher program was to decimate urban schools rather than to give students an opportunity to choose something other than a failure in their education.

Three - when a business begins to lose its customers, it starts to look internally at what's going wrong - are my prices too high? is my quality not what it should be? does my competition have better customer service?

Our school system, on the other hand, starts trying to place blame anywhere BUT internally.

Then there is this paragraph in the story:

"The teachers’ union reported two Bowsher High School students transferred recently to Woodward High School because they want free public cash toward tuition at St. Francis de Sales High School in the fall." (emphasis added)

Which leads me to point four - why is that these school leaders fail to understand that it isn't 'free public cash' as if the educational funds belong to some nebulous group or entity. These 'public' funds are OUR tax dollars which we expended to purchase a product - that being a quality education. There is no ENTITLEMENT of public schools to these monies - the only entity ENTITLED to such funds is the CHILD. And if such a child cannot get the quality education to which they're entitled, they should have every right to take their own monies and go to where they can.

If the TPS school system wants to stop the students from leaving, it needs to realize that criticizing its competitors - and insisting upon the usage of a failed monopoly - is not the way to do so. The test scores at these failing schools are already speaking loudly and clearly as is the decision of parents to send their children elsewhere - but is anyone really listening?

UPDATE: I wanted to add a link to this column by Debra Saunders, "Higher Grades, Lower Scores," which discusses the decline in proficiency despite an increase in grade point averages.