No. Not at all. What currently takes place is a shotgun approach, and information is provided on an “as needed” basis, based upon the request of particular board members.
Case in point – the recent purchase of smart boards for classrooms and schools. On the February 9 agenda, the item came up as new business. In the board packet, one dollar figure was provided for the board to consider when making their purchase, $749,006.61. Additionally, pages of an implementation and distribution schedule was provided to show that all schools would be receiving the technology. Good information, but simply not enough.
Immediately, the first question that popped into my mind was “how much are maintenance costs,” and “who is to be trained on this?” Additionally, I asked myself how much this would cost the district in the future. The same question was asked to the individual making the presentation to the board, Eric Willard.
Two weeks later, at the February 23 meeting (where boards were purchased by a 7-0 vote), the information was provided in a detailed multi-page presentation. Having said that, I am glad the information eventually was giving to the public and the board. However, I’m still disappointed that it took the board requesting this information instead of it automatically being considered part of the initial proposal under new business. Here’s another important part to keep in mind…
…the cost request when up another $21,504 for “professional development.” Wasn’t in the first proposal to the board, when the public would have two weeks (at least) to provide some feedback on this. Instead, it went before the board right before they approved it.
I don’t like that. I’m not in favor of that. That practice has to change. My opponents say that we already have processes that involve consultants providing us budget projections. Well, outside of the fact I don’t believe we should be paying outside consultants exorbitant fees to do our financial planning (I try to pick and choose my battles), I’d again like to describe exactly what my opponents are talking about.
First, they are referencing Board Policy 4:20 “Administrative Procedure – Fund Balance”, which reads, in part:
On an annual basis during the budget formulation period, the administration will develop the budget as well as projections for the next three (3) years. If the projection for any year shows a decline in fund balance to less than (3) months’ reserve, the administration will alert the Board so that an action plan can be developed to prevent such a decline from occurring.
Here’s the important distinction. This requires the OVERALL $200 million plus budget be projected out three years, but not anything else, and for the purposes of identifying if a budget shortfall will impact fund balance reserves. Not a bad policy, but simply not enough.
Think, in all the discussion about financial planning, who has offered you that explanation? I have. Please reference my answer at the 24:30 mark in the LWV forum video for my answer there, which explains the difference between budget finance planning and program finance planning. The two are unique, and that is something that my opponents have failed to grasp. Frankly, if we used the method I propose with FISs, we would have seen that document and analysis on the first reading of the SMART board purchase on February 9.
We did not.
I’ve said throughout this campaign that rhetoric is no substitute for ideas. I am the only candidate in this election with a plan. Call that an agenda if you want, call it a roadmap for all I care. However, I will not be told that ideas do not have a place on the school board.
I simply refuse to believe that having goals for action and doing it for the kids are mutually exclusive from one another.
