board

All posts tagged board

No on issue 6, part 3 – The Income tax option for Grandview Heights schools has been neglected

Published October 26, 2018 by justicewg

Three signs #6I have read a number of opponents of issue #6 who dislike the unfairness of the property tax the board wants to use for the facilities, and the loss of older and lower income segments of the community, as the taxes drive these people away*. Property taxes are inherently regressive, costing a larger percentage of the income for lower income people.

An income tax would still hurt those who have low incomes, but it would probably be a smaller hit, and impact all segments of the community the same. Why has the possibility of an income tax been almost totally dismissed throughout the facility review process?

Unanswered questions about income taxes

I checked back in past documents and found almost nothing about evaluating an income tax for the school facility improvements. During Community Engagement Meeting #6, held June 8, 2017, Treasurer Collier did say that there was a possibility of using an income tax.

https://www.ghcsd.org/apps/video/watch.jsp?v=150462

Skip ahead in the video by dragging the progress bar, at 1:26:10 an income tax is discussed. No projections were made by Collier for how much income tax would be needed to address the school needs. All questions about the possibility of an income tax were being left for the Finance committee.**

Treasurer Collier said that the Finance committee would be looking at the income tax possibility, but with no statement of support for an income tax from the school board, the committee was left to take all the heat generated from proposing an income tax. Without a specific mandate from the board to explore income taxes ( and come up with a plan, instead of a quick dismissal) , why would any committee place themselves in the position of proposing a new kind of tax?

Why would something as important as exploring the possibility of a new income tax for the school be left in the hands of a closed, no meeting notes, no accountability committee? This is the same question we asked about the recommendation from the Finance committee to add a one mill operation levy to the bond levy – why is a closed group, in violation of Ohio Open meeting laws, making decisions that should be made by the school board?

Why open meetings are important

We have no way to find out what happened in the Finance committee meetings. Was the option of an income tax even discussed? There was no recording of the meetings, there was no meeting notes. Emails to participants are not answered.

Maybe there was a significant number of FC members who thought that an income tax would be the best way to fund the school improvements? And if the community were allowed to attend those meetings, we could have noted who argued in favor, and the reasons they gave. We could take that information to the board, and ask them to revisit the possibility. We could have promoted the option of an income tax in community groups like G4G, and organized a groundswell of support for that option.

All those possibilities are gone, because the Finance committee was closed, because all of the process and deliberations of the group – which those members told us they did in depth and for many hours – are lost forever. Any new finance committee which may be needed to revisit the facility questions after a failed levy will have to start from zero.

The board should be the only group discussing tax options

Tax levies are the most important issues the board is legally empowered to decide for the schools. It is the basic floor that all the rest of the school system is built on. Unless the money from the taxpayers can be acquired by a board that is trusted, and earns the votes of the community, all of the planing and policy of the board means nothing.

School boards are supposed to be open, conducting all discussion on tax levies so the community can evaluate the arguments. We can listen, be persuaded — or be opposed. Most importantly, we can know which board members made what arguments. When elections for seats on the board come around, we can remember who we liked, and give them our vote. We can campaign against the members who don’t do a good job.

The foundation of democracy is listening to the public office holders, and making them accountable in the polling place.

When the Grandview Heights school board delegates vital issues to closed committees, they are breaking the laws of Ohio on open meetings. They are actively degrading the democratic basis of our community. We should never accept that as “the way we do things here”. We should be telling the board, over and over, “you are wrong, stop taking away out democratic rights”. We should keep doing that until they understand they are wrong – or until they are voted out of office.

Dayton Task force cancels meetings

Tip of the hat to Stephanie Wolfe. A Dayton school system tried to hold facility task force meetings in private, similar to the Grandview Task force and Finance committees. After complaints from news media that Ohio open meting laws required the meetings to allow everyone to attend, the meetings were canceled.

Previously – Vote no on issue #6, part 1

Vote no on issue #6, part 2

Read the rest of this entry →

Advertisements

Reasons to vote no on the levy – The Grandview Heights school board is not trustworthy

Published September 28, 2018 by justicewg

culp in facility meeting 7There are many reasons for voters to give a thumb down on the school’s issue #6, but the one I have heard the most is “I don’t trust the school board”. Let’s look at all the ways the board has failed the community, and lost the trust that is needed for a functional school board.

The big lie about the Finance committee

The school board used deception and back-room dealing throughout the entire facility review process, but one lie topped them all – the claim that everything about the process would be open and transparent. This video (recorded by the school) captured the moment that superintendent Culp told the community that the Finance committee would be open, that minutes would be taken.

A community member asked superintendent Culp about the Finance committee, asked if there will be notice of meetings, public participation, minutes online. Culp said “I fully commit to that, I don’t think you can do it any other way.” The board later made the committee closed, with hand picked supporters, no meeting notes were allowed out of the room.

Andy Culp knew that the Facility Task Force had already been created as a closed, no visitor, no meeting notes allowed committee by the school board. He should have known that the board would do the same thing with the Finance committee. I think it’s likely he knew he was lying to the parents at this meetings. But if we take him at his word, and accept that he was “fully committed” to an open Finance committee, what does that say about the relationship with the school board? They knew that he had staked his integrity on the stand he took for an open Finance committee – and they destroyed it.

Should we trust a school board that can so casually (and for so little gain) trash the integrity of the superintendent?

The secrecy of the Finance committee was a big deal

Was the promise by Culp really that important? Watch the video of the report to the community from the Finance committee. On eight separate occasions, community members ask why the Finance meetings were closed, why there are no meeting notes available. The G4G group complained about the secrecy of the closed committees on their website (website is under revision currently) and attracted 368 community members to sign their petition to the school board.

For the people who spent hours going to the open facility meetings, attending 7 of them, the major revisions to the school facility plans, made by a closed committee, was a big deal. The fact that the board has refused to answer questions about why the Finance committee was closed is a big deal. It’s a major reason to vote no on the levy.

Do you trust Jessie Truett with $55 million?

Read the rest of this entry →

Econ committee votes to start city onto a track that leads to a bad deal with NRI

Published September 18, 2018 by justicewg

The city council members on the economic development committee voted on Sept 17 to approve a resolution that supports the deal the school board is making with NRI, which might lead to more money for the schools, but at the cost of approving a deal with NRI that is bad for both the city and the schools. This deal is on a track that will be hard to stop, unless many residents of Grandview Heights speak up, and tell both the board and the council to stop being poor negotiators. With the pressure of public comments, both via email and in city council meetings, the citizens of this city can stop this poor deal, and work for something from a position of strength.

Details of the deal

The full story on the NRI deal is complex, I’m trying to give a short summary that might pass over parts that are important to get a full understanding. I will be posting as many documents and videos from the city as I can, in the future.

Mayor DeGraw was part of the Finance committee at the school (the closed, hand picked group that made major decisions on the school facility plan with no meeting notes or video being taken). The group was looking hard at ways to improve the poor deal the school made with NRI back at the start of the Yard development, but as the mayor told the group, the city and the school had no bargaining power, a slight revision in 2014 didn’t help the school much.

The mayor told the school board that there was only one possible way to get movement from NRI, that was the land south of Goodale near the Yard. There were problems with the ownership of the land (at the time of the finance meeting), and there are big issues with cleanup of the land from pollution, but it was the only way that the school might get a lever on changing the deals made with NRI.

The school board saw this as a green light to start a new negotiation with NRI, and in the first months of 2018, they pressed NRI to make a new deal. NRI, being some of the best deal makers in the Fortune 500, immediately saw this as a way to come out on top of a deal with the rubes on the school board.

NRI must have been fully aware that the school was throwing every bit of influence they possessed into the quest to build new school buildings, and they are now almost certain to fail in the November levy request. The only way the board can pull some respect out of their floundering is to make a deal that brings more money out of NRI. This was a setup that NRI used to make a terrible deal for both the board and the city.

What is wrong with the NRI deal?

Both council members Anthony Panzera and Steve Reynolds spoke at length before the econ committee about the bad position the city and school are placing themselves into. I will be posting video of their talks. A short summary:

The council is allowing itself to be leaned on by the school board, and is shortcutting the normal channels under which the city would review and approve deals like this.

There is no reason for linking the development of the south of Goodale area with a renegotiation of the TIF with NRI. The only reason this is happening is that NRI knows the board is desperate for something they can call a win. The only one winning is NRI.

A housing development with 400 new units is not the best use of the land, and the city can do better.

The school board has been talking lowering their tax rate if they get the NRI deal. First, this is pure fantasy, the board will just use excess money to tear down Stevenson and build a new middle school. And even if the board did cut taxes for residents property, the one entity that would get the biggest tax cut would be – NRI, the largest land owner in the city.

(UPDATE) The board is now officially saying “vote for the full tax levy in November, but we probably will not need all that money if the NRI deal goes through.

While the combined bond issue and operating levy on the November ballot as Issue 6 would still be needed, this agreement would likely enable the district to reduce the amount of taxes that are collected on the November ballot issue. – Andy Culp

Amazing. The board is now saying “pass our levy, but trust us to give some of the money back to you – maybe”. This is self sabotage, why will anyone now vote for taxes that the school says they might not need? I think the board is so sure the levy will fail that they are giving themselves an excuse for the failure.

What about the Comprehensive city planning committee?

There is a large group of residents who are in the middle of a comprehensive city plan, one that is supposed to set the direction the city will take in future development. That group is not finished, and is not scheduled to be done until sometime next year. The fast tracking of the south of Goodale development is a blow to the integrity of the process – it is the city telling all of those people who spent hours in meetings “sorry suckers, you just wasted your time, because we are going to do what we want, to heck with your plans”. This is the kind of action that generates cynicism in the community. This is what makes people say “I though Grandview was different, but I guess we have a city government that is the same as anywhere else”

Check back on this post often, I have lots more to post – city documents, video, etc. Until those updates, you can watch the video of the NRI deal discussion in the last council meeting, starting at the 1:04:30 point in the YT video.

(UPDATE 2)

Video of the Sept 17 full council meeting

All of the preceding discussion happened at the Econ committee meeting on the 17th, and was not recorded by the city. Immediately following that meeting there was a full council meeting, which was video recorded. The speeches given by school board members at this meeting are just carbon copies of the ones they gave to the committee, except for one from board member Brannon. The things she said about NRI needs to be listened to carefully.

Read the rest of this entry →

Board highballs the facility bid, admits finance committee is running the school

Published July 9, 2018 by justicewg

The process for updating to school buildings has been ongoing for years, and from the start, the board declared they wanted to build expensive new buildings. They are following through on that declaration, and more – the board has proposed a ridiculous highball number ($55 million) and tacked on an operating levy of one mill, just to remind parents that they can hold the school children hostage. If you are voting for this $55 million plan, you are also voting for a replacement (probably another $25 million) of the Stevenson building, because the plan under funds upgrades to the building.

The board also now has no defense from the charge that the finance committee was a policy deciding group that should have been open under the Ohio Open Meeting laws.

How highballs work in negotiations

The school board has known since the G4G group went public with opposition to the superintendent’s request for a $50 million facility plan last year that the first try at a levy would fail. There has been unprecedented opposition to the school’s attempt to manipulate the facility process, even the most optimistic on the board must have known that the $50 million plan was not going to pass. Given that fact, the board decided that a highball bid was the way to set expectations for the future.

Negotiation is all about setting the expectation for a “good number”, a price that seems normal to pay. Some ruthless negotiators find no worth in starting mid range, a high number sets the top of the range, and brings up the bottom. If the school board carefully cut into the plan as presented by Culp last year, they might have come up with a plan that cost $45 million. But the board saw that as leaving money on the table, they said, “if you are going to lose the first bid anyway, go for the big money”.

Make no mistake – this sort of hard negotiation is not normal for a Grandview Heights board. Most levies in the recent past have been in the normal range of past operating levies. Most levies pass with 60% in favor. There was one ridiculous levy attempt back in 2002 that was a big lesson for the board, and which will be used as a template for the present.

The fantasy levy of 2002

The school board of May 2002 used a similar tactic for highballing the voters, with a twist. The “incremental operating” levy asked for 9.8 mills, already a high number. They then added an additional 4 mills, to take effect the next year, and 4 more the next year. Only 35% of the voters were in favor, the biggest loser of all levies.

Nobody expected that levy to pass – but it set the expectation for the “right number” higher. That fall, the voters approved 10.7 mills, the highest millage issue in the history of the school.

The board that approved the original highball levy should have been immediately recall voted out of office, the fantasy incremental levy was an insult to the community that should have been punished. But in the minds of those board members, they saw it as a needed hardball tactic. And the approval of the fall levy was a submission by the community. We got played, and we didn’t fight it.

Stevenson replacement in the future is part of the $55 million bid

When Culp presented his initial plan for the school upgrades in September 2017, he included $6 million in refurbish work on the Stevenson building. That money was nearly zeroed out by the finance committee, they said “we are only looking at doing security and ADA upgrades at Stevenson”. If the school board under funds the maintenance of Stevenson – and nothing will stop them – that will place the closing of the building at the top of the board’s list. Shortly after the new middle school is completed, the board will come back to the voters with irrefutable evidence (because they created the problems) that Stevenson MUST be replaced. Add another $25 million to the construction costs, in the near future.

Two “no on the levy” votes will be needed

The highball bid of $55 million will not pass. But it will set the expectation high, and allow the board to come back to the voters with a $50 million plan in 2019. Cutting a few frills will be presented as painful cuts (funny how all the real pain will be suffered by the taxpayers).

There will need to be two consecutive no votes on the school’s levies before the board can be convinced to come down to a real number that will get the support of the community. This will be hard, because another, higher operation levy will be sure to be tacked onto the second bond levy. The board will threaten major cuts in after school programs, and cuts to classes that are offered. The re-implementation of activity fees will be on the table for the second vote for sure.

Unfortunately the best solution for a school board that is extorting the community – voting out the present board – will not be up for a regular vote until November 2019, when Palmisciano and Brannan can be replaced. If Truett and the other two board members elected in 2017 want to cause maximum damage to the community before they are voted out, the three of them can run the board until 2021.

The board broke the laws on open meetings Read the rest of this entry →

Financial Advisory Committee lost in research and analysis? Or Chaos?

Published April 24, 2018 by justicewg

The school’s Financial Advisory Committee was supposed to be finished by mid March with an “independent” review of the facility planning process at the schools. An early March email from superintendent Culp said that there would be a delay as the Financial Advisory Committee worked on more “research and analysis”, but gave no hint on a completion date. A second email sent from Culp on April 6, 2018, and again the committee was “continuing their research and analysis”. No date was given for a report, or a meeting with the community.

What’s going on? If this was a well planning series of meetings for the committee, they would be finishing their work long ago. Nobody working in a committee has ever said “good, we are taking more than a month after we are scheduled to finish our work, that means things are going well”.

If this were a normal city, with a school board that took it’s pledge of open meetings seriously, we would have no question about what was going on – we could have attended meetings as observers and had a ring side seat to the committee process. Instead, we are locked out, being fed inadequate delaying messages from Culp, and are left to speculate.

The committee is in Chaos

My best guess is the committee is being thrown in so many directions it has been lost in chaos. Unable to form a set of recommendations that make sense, given the constant statements from the school board and treasurer that claim the taxes in Grandview are low, while also listening to G4G’s facts that show the taxes in Grandview have outstripped income, and the fact of the G4G organizing ( currently 355 signatures, and campaigning for more) means that a high levy for school construction has no chance of passing.

Given the past organizational skills show by the board , when they ended a contract with facility planning group HPG in a bitter dispute that required the company to walk away in the middle of the work, you have to wonder if the same failures are sending committee members walking away in disgust?

Reading the info on the school website

Culp claims in his emails that the school has plenty of updates on the facility process on the school website. There is a section that is supposed to be filled with current information on the Financial Advisory Committee. However, read the document download section at the bottom of the page – nothing has been posted since a PP document (created by the administration) that was shown to the committee back in early March.

Nothing on this page in the school website has any documents created by the committee. We are left with no way to even get a hint as to the direction the group is heading, more than a month after they were supposed to be finished. THIS IS NOT NORMAL. This is not open, or transparent, or responsive to the community.

FAQ page has been scrubbed of info on facility contract costs.

In my post about the new Facility FAQ on the school website, I noted that the administration had removed a section that listed the outside consultants who have done work on the facilities process, and an accounting of the money spent on these companies. I sent some emails to find out why the school made these deletions.

Mr Culp;

One big change in the new school facility FAQ is the deletion of a section that listed the outside consultants who have done work on the facilities process, and an accounting of the money spent on these companies. Last year the total was at least $200 thousand. I have heard that the number is now well over $250K.

Why was that section deleted from the FAQ?

Mr Wagner;

Thanks for your email.  I have copied Beth Collier on this email who can give you the total dollars spent thus far in our facility planning process.  

We removed the entire FAQ as much of the information as no longer accurate or relevant.

Thanks,     Andy

Mr Culp;

Are you saying that you can no longer provide accurate information to Grandview residents on the costs associated with the consultants?

Or are you saying that the costs for consultants are not relevant to the questions Grandview residents have about the costs of the facility process?

No Reply from Mr. Culp – maybe he needed some more coffee?

(Later) On Tuesday, May 29, 2018, at 6:30 PM, the Finance Committee will finally present results of their work at the high school auditorium. More than two months overdue – and not a word of explanation from the group to the community about what was causing the delay. Because keeping the community a part of the process is just a show, a fake front that is dropped when it isn’t needed. There will be comments allowed after the findings, and you can go and stand up and talk, and your words will disappear, never to be acknowledged by the board.

City has no problem making videos and posting them.

The Steering Committee is the sub-group of the planning process for the City of Grandview Heights, they will manage the public meetings, they had a May 17 meeting and posted it on YT. Why does the city have no problem inviting anyone to attend sub-committee meetings, and making and posting videos, but the school board can’t do these simple things for it’s committees?

 

Culp’s G4G video response, and why it is unimportant

Published March 9, 2018 by justicewg
culp-leads-laughter

Andy Culp promotes laughing at community comments at the first public facility meeting.

There is an email circulating in Granview that is supposed to be a response from superintendent Culp to the G4G video. I’ll get back to the email, but first some straight talk about the way things work in the Grandview Heights school board, why they don’t respond to any criticism – and why they should be the ones responding to G4G.

A long history of Policy Governance

I have written often in this blog about the way the school board believes in Policy Governance. If you want a the long form story on that theory of governance, you can read the Wiki article. Here is the short version:

“The board will focus on strategic leadership rather than administrative detail; observe clear distinction between Board and CEO roles; make collective rather than individual decisions; …”

That quote was from the Columbus school board website, back when they were firmly entrenched in Policy Governance. It is as good a summary as any I have found for how the Grandview board operates.

The board treats the superintendent like a CEO of a private company. They don’t want to be bothered with hearing complaints about the daily operation of the school, they are only “big picture” focused. So you get board meetings where the super lists his recommendations, and the board complies, five votes yes. You never read challenges to the ideas the super promotes in any school board meeting.

The board is big on using ideas from business, like using a committee composed of people from private companies. This is part of the “run the government like a business” that is a mantra of the republicans.

The board almost always votes unanimously. Years pass between split votes. The theory from Policy Governance is that the board should be letting the CEO run the school, so there should be no opposition from the board. In a practical, real world application, the people who want to change school policy go to board members in private, then the board communicates with each other outside of meetings to form policy.

Another big reason the board is always unanimous – members who stake out positions in public that are not immediately accepted and become unanimous policy would be venerable to challenge in the next election. You can’t pick out individuals when the board is always a faceless collective.

The present board has another favorite method of forming school policy outside of meetings, the facility Task force and Finance committee are run by board members, and greatly control school policy, but they are closed to public attendance and meeting notes are not allowed out of the room. Culp tries to claim these meetings are not being run by the board, therefore are not part of the Open Meeting laws. He is wrong.

The board should be responding to G4G

Read the rest of this entry →

New school facility FAQ vs the G4G video

Published March 2, 2018 by justicewg

The school administration has updated the facility FAQ on the school website with new information about the facility numbers and process. Although the board and the administration still refuse to acknowledge the Good for Grandview group, they obviously are responding to some of the points the G4G has made on their website. The G4G group meanwhile has produced a new video that summarized the facts about the facilities in a short, easy to watch video. Lets look at what each of them are saying.

New FAQ on the school website

Faq is a scamThe new FAQ on the school website has the current spin from the school board on the facility process. By the way, that link in the preceding sentence goes directly to the web page on the school website. If you got a email from the superintendent this week that listed a link to the FAQ, you probably got a warning from your email service that said “The link might be a scam”. The problem is that the link in Culp’s email doesn’t link directly to the school website, it first sends you to a tracking service used by the school’s messenger newsletter software. So the school will know which IP addresses clicked on the link (not unusual, but I had to note that the school’s links are listed as scams by some email clients).

Leading with $44.5 million dollars in deferred maintenance

The school board is not going to back off the deceptive $44.5 million number, they jump right on it in the first paragraph, and defend it with a full section of the FAQ. Even though the G4G did a good take down that showed why that is an inappropriate number, the board is refusing to budge an inch.

Quick review of the debate – HPG came up with this number as a full cost to make all of the schools meet current building codes. The problem is that only new construction is required to meet these codes, there is nothing unsafe about the old codes. If you had to make your 90 year old Grandview home meet all of the current new construction codes, you might also figure it is cheaper to build new. But almost nobody does that, because it isn’t needed, and it destroys a historic building for no good reason (unless you like new construction, in which case you can buy a new house in Hilliard).

The board also fails to answer questions about how they parted on bad terms with HPG, and the unanswered questions throw a shadow over the HPG report. In fact, Harrison himself said that the $44 million number was not an appropriate number for this debate.

In the FAQ the board insists that “it would take $44.5 million to simply address our building maintenance needs.” , then they discount the K-12 Consulting report that gave the board a much lower number. The board disparages the K-12 consultants as being unqualified to give an accurate number (but then that raises the question, why did the board hire a consultant that isn’t qualified?).

They then list the replacement of a boiler and a roof as “unplanned expenditures”, in an attempt to show that the K-12 report didn’t have the full, accurate numbers. However, a careful reading of that report shows that boiler and roof replacement was accounted for as a part of the needed maintenance over the next ten years. The board blatantly lied about the contents of the K-12 report.

The FAQ continues to use the effective tax rate, and doesn’t mention the real, total voted millage (where Grandview has the highest number in all the school districts). They also try to insist that residents received “only 5.6 increase in property tax” after the 2017 revaluation. I wouldn’t call that number “ONLY 5.6%”, as though it requires a simple effortless budget shift to find that extra money. And that number was an average – many people now pay even more.

(Edit –  Apparently that 5.6% was more accurately the increase attributed to the  revaluation, when you add the increases cause by other taxes it adds up to 9.3%, and the board is still calling it ONLY 9.3%. Funny, when the board was dealing with cuts from the state, it wasn’t a “ONLY 5%”. When the school gets cut, it becomes “a pretty significant dropoff”.)

The FAQ ends with asking how much the school spends per student , and how that compares to other districts – and fails to answer its own question.

One big change in the school FAQ is the deletion of a section that listed the outside consultants who have done work on the facilities process, and an accounting of the money spent on these companies. Last year the total they admitted to was at least $200 thousand. I have heard that the number is now well over $250K, and that number will spike well above that if the board hires more public relations people to push a doomed levy in the fall.

 

Good for Grandview video

Go watch the video produced by G4G. It’s only 4 minutes long, and is a lot more fun to watch than this sucky blog. (Later) The G4G have taken down their video, they are now in the process of deciding how to react to the board’s $55 million levy bid).

High points – the property tax vs median household income is the chart that is most important. Taxes have gone up, but the average income has not matched that increase. The 2008 great recession hit hard, and while the economy is back, incomes have not recovered much. More importantly, household wealth – the total assets (land, property, money saved, etc.) took a big hit in the recession and many have not recovered. Retirement money was used, and many of those scraping by have not put the money back. People are still hurting. They simply don’t have the income to vote for new taxes.

The G4G video makes a point of this, Grandview is not composed of just doctors and lawyers, we still have some people with lower incomes, and retired folks with fixed income. New taxes will drive these people out. You will never hear the school board say a word about the impact new taxes will have on the people who can least afford them.

That reminds me of a story I heard about back when the board was pushing the 2002 tax increase, when voters rejected a ridiculous 9.8 + 4 + 4 incremental school levy. Board members were calling up residents, and told them that “people who can’t pay for new taxes should shut up and move out”. I’m guessing some variant of that message will be used for the next levy campaign.

No comparison

So who wins in the school FAQ vs the G4G video? Let’s see – the school board stubbornly repeats useless numbers and refuses to concede that they made any errors in the HPG scandal, or the anti-democratic hiding of school policy creation in the closed task force and finance committees. Their tactic seems to be “fingers in ears, yell the same lies louder”.

The G4G has created a video that has a perfect balance of good information about the past, and points to the way we can get to a better outcome for the schools and the community without tearing the school into warring factions. Is there any question about who wins?

Finance committee failing to make their schedule

Just today we learned from Culp that the closed to the community Finance committee, scheduled to make a report before the community on March 12, will not be ready by that date. No new date has been set. Culp is claiming that they are “still in the process of doing research”.

Given the history of deception from the board, you have to wonder – is this some rebellion that has to be quashed? Maybe – but I have been burned in the past hoping that some group will stand up to the board and tell them that they are a bunch of idiots. We will see. Finance committee members – anyone want to be a good guy and let the community know what is really happening? Use my “about” section to send an anonymous message.