superintendent

All posts tagged superintendent

Vote no on issue #6, part 2 – the NRI deal

Published October 19, 2018 by justicewg

Three signs #6The school is trying to complete a negotiation with NRI that could accelerate the tax payments from the Yard, to the point where the boost in tax money may becomes as much as 50% of the cost of the bond the board needs to build a new middle school. Why should voters pass the present levy, when we could have a significantly smaller one via waiting until the negotiations are finished?

The deal

Early in 2018, the school board started negotiation with NRI over increasing the rate of tax money coming from the Grandview Yard development. The board had almost completed the facility meetings, and had set themselves a goal of building a new middle school – the only uncompleted work was the finance committee recommendation to increase the already high $50 million plan from Culp up to a $55 million plan with the extra connector between the schools.

The board was also fully aware of the objections to the new school plan by the G4G group. That unprecedented group spelled levy doom for board members who were not living in a fantasy world. Normal, uncontroversial levies have only passed with 60% yes votes in the past, an opposition group insured failure of the levy (and the two additional NO on #6 groups are the nails in the levy coffin).

I’m of two minds over the board’s attempt to cut a new deal with NRI. Was it just an amateurish mistake to attempt to renegotiate taxes with NRI. and pass the bond at the same time? Even the slowest members on the board must have known they were shooting themselves in the feet with the uncertainty added by the NRI deal. I also think it might have been a desperation move by the board, they knew they would fail in the levy attempt, so they wanted to have some way to win – even if it was by completing a deal that would be bad for both the the school and the city. As long as they got some money, they could claim victory, as long as THEY were the ones who got some money out of NRI..

Whatever the motivation, we now have a deal in progress that might bring substantial money from Grandview Yard, well ahead of past deals. Lets look at what the Mayor said about the deal.

The Mayor and the council

Before the quotes from the Mayor, to be clear – he supports the school levy, So do all the council members who have been asked. They support it because:

It is a normal thing for the board and the council to support each other when they have a levy on the ballot. This is standard mutual support – it is what good politicians do *.

And the council will be asking for new tax money for a new city hall next May. They want the school levy issue completed so they are not both asking for new taxes at the same time.

The mayor speaks

How much additional money will (the NRI deal) mean to the school?
There are some initial estimates using various assumptions, but I do not want to speculate until we have an agreement. I believe we are close. It should be recognized that until recently the City and School have estimated only the dollars coming to the school of what is actually built. We both are fiscally conservative. Those figures indicated that the school would receive about $60 million over the next 20 years. For a long time, this was the figured used. We now have more information on what is being proposed in the current project, which would bring an estimated additional $18 million, or $78 million total to the school. Add to this the development to the south of Goodale and modified school compensation agreement and that figure could almost double. – Mayor DeGraw

Re-read that last sentence for the most important news. The school might be getting $78 million, through modifying the TIF agreement. But the additional taxes that might come from the construction of new buildings south of Goodale could be another boost, up to $156 million total.

This is the most important question – why are we being asked to pass a high levy by the board, when they are on the verge of receiving news that could completely change the financial position of the school?

Committee for Grandview Heights Schools pamphlet

The Pro-levy committee sent a brochure out to every home in the city, answering questions about the levy. What do they say about the NRI deal, in a bullet point section?

The need is now, and at this point no agreement has been reached with NRI.

OK, most taxpayers want to know what they are getting into, and can wait a year for a deal to be completed. What is the rush? Are their bulldozers sitting near the middle school, ready to start the demolition?

The NRI deal could reduced costs to residents by 50% , but could never cover the entire costs

So what? If my income might go up by 50%, I sure would want to wait until I know for sure, before I buy a house. Who cares what percentage the NRI deal covers? If it is significant, we should wait.

Delaying the project would result in added costs.

The committee doesn’t have a crystal ball that allows them foolproof projections on cost, but they do have this thing called “history”. The cost of construction went down in 2008, due to recession. “Costs always rise” is not true. Also, income to the school will be rising, because of the additional tax money from the Yard (tax money that was negotiated in the past, not the current deal). Everyone with any financial skills at all should be shouting “STOP, do not sign contracts for construction when your income is in flux”.

Waiting until the NRI deal is reached would not change the ballot millage, however, it would reduce the taxes the school could collect from residents.

I think the brain power of this committee just completely gave out at this point in the brochure. That talking point is one that belongs to the anti-levy groups, the important issue is the tax rates we are going to pay. If the need for operation millage is going down, we should wait until the financial position of the school is clear.

Implied in the statement “no change in the ballot millage” (I think they mean to say bond millage) is a threat – pass this levy, or we will come back, over and over, asking for the same amount. We will never listen to critics and cut the size of the school facility plan. That threat supports the need to vote the current board out of office.

Part three of my “reasons to vote no on issue #6” will be covering the effects of high taxes on the community, and how the board has failed to make obvious moves that could have protected fixed income and lower income residents.

The YT information session

In past years, the school used to hold public meetings before levies, and would answer questions from the community. I just read the following from the school:

Superintendent Culp and Treasurer Collier are holding an online Community Conversation on Monday, October 22 from 6:30-7:30 p.m. They will be at the YouTube feed at  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvM52He47uyzfX0bnjSsz-w.

The superintendent is so deep in the bunker, he can only answer pre-screened questions on YT? For one hour?

(Later) The YT session had “technical issues” and started late, and probably lost all the viewers. They only answered questions that were the softest of the softballs – for 26 minutes. There was one answer that was important, to a question about what the board will do when the levy fails. Will the board do some self examination, and rethink the $55 million plan? Or ignore all the critics, and start plans to cut programs at the schools? Spoiler – Culp only talks about the latter. More on this later.

Previously – Reasons to vote no on the levy, part 1 – The Grandview Heights school board is not trustworthy

Read the rest of this entry →

Advertisements

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 →

Video of the May 29, 2018 finance committee report

Published June 3, 2018 by justicewg

Finance comm video stillHighlights of the Video of the May 29, 2018 finance committee meeting at the high school auditorium.

Update – as of 6/7/18, the video of the finance committee report has been deleted from the Google Drive where it was located.  (later) As of 1:30 PM, the video has been returned, but the URL has changed (updated in the link above). The time stamps were slightly changed because of the re-upload, but are close.

The numbers seen below are the time stamps for the sections of the meeting video, which is posted on the school website. You can drag the progress mark of the video up to any section that are mentioned below (on a desktop, not sure if you can step ahead in a phone video). Warning – the video is almost two hours long. This post is long too. Both are important to understand what is happening at the school.

Highlights of the Finance committee video

:10 Superintendent Culp gives an opening speech.

4:00 Someone asks if the minutes of the finance committee meetings will be posted on the website, along with other material. Superintendent Culp tries to deflect the question by answering that there will be agendas and “outcomes” posted, and tries to slide past the fact that the real meeting notes are not going to be given to the community.

5:10 A questioner asks again about the meeting minutes, and tries to get Culp to admit that the meeting notes will not be shared. Someone off camera tries to shut down the questioner by shouting at them to hold their questions until the end.

5:35 Culp says “we have outcomes, we have meeting notes, we have all kinds of documentation that was shared at the meeting, but most importantly, the document you have in your hands”. He again avoids saying that the meeting notes are not going to be posted. Listen carefully here, he said the meeting notes exist, he just doesn’t want to talk about them.

6:00 Culp turns the meeting over to Jack Kukura, who is speaking for the finance committee. At this point they inserted a video with high production, complete with dramatic music. It is about the finance committee, and it tries to dazzle you with public relation buzz words, praise for the board and superintendent because they want to build a new school, and more. There could be another post covering just the contents of this slick video, but I’ll just summarize it with one observation and a question.

They make a big point in the video about how the information for updating the facilities is complex, with engineering data, with lots of state and federal standards that must be considered. If that information is so important, why didn’t the board allow community members to attend the finance committee meetings? Why didn’t they video the finance meetings? Why is the board refusing to release meeting notes from the finance committee?

10:20 Kukira speaks for the committee. He tells us that he lives in Marble Cliff, but that he used to live on Wyandotte in Grandview. I think he was trying to say “I’m just one of you middle class people”, but by bringing it up, he suggests a question – just what is the average income level of the finance committee? Do they know what it is like for a normal middle class resident who struggles to keep up with high taxes?

11:05 Katie Matney asks, “Out of curiosity, can I have a show of hand of those who graduated from Grandview Heights? Who had children in the school, but not now? Who has children in the school now?”

Why use the show of hands to get this information, they can always use the “tickets” that people are supposed to fill out to get that info. Maybe the reason there needed to be raised hands was to make clear to people in the auditorium which of their neighbors in the seats are natives, because born residents tend to discount the views of new residents? Maybe they want the current parents to know who are the older people who no longer have kids in the schools, so that they can discount the opinions of those who will not have to use the school buildings (but will have to pay the taxes).

My suggestion for the next community meeting at the school – have a show of hands for the people who have a total household income of more than $100K. Then ask who has more an $200K income. If those other questions were valid, the income of the guy sitting near you also should be known.

12:00 “Grandview buildings are 90 years old, and are past their lives”. The finance committee is starting from the assumption that the school buildings are dead, and as they imply throughout the meeting, they don’t want us to fix these “Dead” buildings, they want new ones.

12:40 Matney says her kids are not being sent to private schools, and they are happy to send them to Grandview schools. Why is that important to say? Maybe some of the committee members didn’t send their kids to Grandview schools?

16:00 Kukuria returns to talk about the scope of the committee meetings. He says that the group was only looking at the “tear down the middle school” option, and didn’t look at other cheaper paths. He tries to say that the committee was somehow independent enough to reject some of the recommendations from Culp, but when you look at the final documents, you see that their “independence” was limited to asking for more expensive total numbers. The only cuts they suggested – and according to Kukuria the only split in opinions for the committee – was for renovation of Stevenson.

I listened carefully to that section where he talked about issues that could not be brought to consensus on the committee. He said “there were concerns about safety and security in the buildings, which cost more, and therefore we were not able to come up with all the renovation needs at Stevenson”. He later says “we are only looking at doing security and ADA upgrades at Stevenson”.

And yet the committee had no problem spending more on the cost of the new middle school, like the connector section to the HS. Kukuria didn’t make it clear what the disagreement was about on Stevenson, but I think I can figure it out by reading between the lines.

There has always been a segment of the community who wants to see Stevenson and the High School building torn down, and a large campus built on the middle school location. Energy efficiency is best with one large building, and those with a fetish for new modern buildings hate the old fashioned look of the schools.

I think the disagreement on the committee was about spending funds on Stevenson, the “old building haters” don’t want to spend a dollar on a place that they assume will be torn down soon anyway. Even though 75% of the responses on the surveys said that Stevenson should be saved, that 25% who want it gone were in control of the finance committee. So the recommendation is “do the least possible at Stevenson,” (and hope that the board will get more money from the community to tear it down later). I would bet the board will also will do inadequate maintenance at Stevenson, so the building gets progressively worse. And then they will say “look at this old falling apart building, we MUST replace it”.

More after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry →

School Finance Committee report May 29

Published May 30, 2018 by justicewg

Finance report may29The school’s Finance committee, the closed group that refused to share meeting notes, finally gave its report to the community last night. As expected, they followed closely to the plans the school administration has been pushing, with small changes.

The big question before the report was presented was, what they were doing in the closed meetings? They were more than two months late in presenting the findings. I’m still processing all the documents and the video of the meeting, but I think they answered my question – they were not taking so long because they were evaluating the faults in the plans pointed out by the Good for Grandview group, and others. If the performance of the committee last night was representative of the general tone of the meetings, the delay was caused by self-important bloviation by some committee members.

Only the middle school replacement was on the table

The school administration repeated often that the finance committee was going to be an independent group that would have all options on the table. That was a lie – the group members themselves said that their work was only an “audit” of the 50 million dollar “tear down the middle school” choice. No time was spent on evaluating cheaper options that could have renovated the middle school. The only real changes the group made to the administration plans was to add an additional $5 million for things like a connector between the new middle school and the high school.

Why was the committee looking at an operating levy?

Part of the recommendation of the finance group was to suggest that the board add a one mill operating levy onto the request for 7.5 mills to build and renovate the schools. Why was this group considering an operations fund? That was a purely political question that should only  have been considered by the school board. The answer they gave was that adding operations funding was a “holistic approach”. I think by holistic, they mean that it gives the board leverage to hold the students hostage – pass our levy, or your kid gets services taken away, we close down class options, we add fees back for activities.

Scare tactics will be in full effect

The finance report spent a page of the report on “safety and security”, and told us all about how we needed to be adding “basic security measures” that are lacking in the old schools. Never miss a chance to freak parents out about school shootings, if it will pass the levy. You can be sure that these security options will also be used as levers to pass the operations part of the levy – vote for the tax, or we will not have the money to protect your kids from anyone with a gun who wants to walk into the school.

For a little history of the school using scare tactics to push for more money, read the history of the SRO in the school. They used the threat of Al-Qaeda terrorism to push for a police officer in the school. Not kidding!

Culp “fully committed” to open Finance committee meetings, until he wasn’t

The video of the finance comm. report has been posted on the school website. One of the questions you might have about the meeting is the insistent questioning by parents – where are the finance comm. meeting notes we were promised? Why were the meetings closed to the public? Watch this short video to understand why that was so important to many parents.

A community member asks superintendent Culp about the Finance committee, asks if there will be notice of meetings, public participation, minutes online. Culp says “I fully commit to that, I don’t think you can do it any other way.”

If you are pedantic, you might say he didn’t use the words “promise” when he said those words. But “Fully committing” is good enough to call it a promise. Culp didn’t say a word last week when questions were being asked about his commitment. He doesn’t answer questions via email. The board refuses to even acknowledge that Culp made a promise at meeting seven.

Standing by your word is what gives a person integrity. Failing to answer questions shows a lack of honor. Culp has a big problem, and if he is too cowardly to answer questions, the board should step up and tell us – why was the Facilities Task force closed to the public, and meeting notes kept secret? Why, even after Culp promised to have an open fiance committee, was the door slammed shut?

Those are important questions, and the split in the community cause by the failure to address these questions might cause the failure of the levy.

Even if you don’t care about those questions, and just want to see the board fix up the schools, you should be asking the board why they are not answering those questions. Because you are going to see a long protracted fight, because the school board can’t fess up and answer questions they don’t want to answer.

Part two on the finance committee report, a detailed look at the meeting video, is now posted on my blog.

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.