At tonight's Board meeting, Randy Kenyon presented the updated financials for the District. The good news is that we actually have a bit more than we thought. Through a series of favorable events, we've ended up the year with a reserve balance of $3.1M, or 7.4%. This is great, considering we were staring down a <3% reserve at the last meeting.
Here's the bad news. The big swings were due to a lot of one-time monies, so the deficit gets bad, quickly. Within 2 years, we'll be down to ~1.5% reserves if something doesn't change.
Hopefully folks are smart enough to focus on the long term picture, which remains bleak. "Hope" is not a substitute for "planning".
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
How To Choose a Board Member
Since I'm now running for the Board of Trustees, I've been thinking and talking to folks about what makes a good board member. Someone passed along this article, which I found to be particularly good. Enjoy.
http://www.greatschools.net/improvement/volunteering/school-board-candidates.gs?content=22&page=all
http://www.greatschools.net/improvement/volunteering/school-board-candidates.gs?content=22&page=all
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Covington After School Program
At this week's board meeting, one of the board items was to review a draft agreement under which the city would take responsibility for the after school programs that have traditionally been run by the PTA's. The plan was to hold a pilot at Covington this year, then roll it out across the district next year.
I was pretty surprised by the outcome. The city in fact will not be sponsoring the program, at least not yet. There were several factors that rolled into this decision:
No parents were included in the definition of the pilot program. The head of the Covington PTA and the head of the Site Council spoke to the board about the fact that the parents have not been included in the process. Under the old system, the PTA selected all of the vendors who held the after-school courses. They hadn't been consulted at all by the pilot study group, nor had the Site Council.
The revenue split has left a number of unanswered question. The city has said their program would be roughly "cost neutral" to the parents, but they also asked vendors for a 40/60 revenue split. Generally this means the vendors will have to charge more to take home the same amount of money, as the schools previously only took 15% to cover the cost of janitors, lights, etc.
The district wasn't being compensated at all for lights, utilities, janitorial, etc. This would have resulted in a cost to the district of approximately $8,000 per site.
There was not a list of actual offerings available. The city hadn't finalized which classes might be offered- they only had a sample list. This made some folks uneasy, to try to approve something we didn't have all the details on.
The city program wouldn't be ready for launch until ~28 September. Normally these programs are ready right after labor day. This would create a gap for parents of students at Covington who rely on the after school program for child care.
On the flip side, the city would bring to the program some disciple that it was agreed would be useful, in terms of formalizing the list of children participating (making it easier to deal with emergency situations), background screening / fingerprinting of vendors, etc. While those are valuable "pluses" to the program, there were simply too many unanswered questions about how the program would actually come together. After a pretty vigorous discussion, it was decided that the PTA would launch the fall program offerings. The city will go back to the drawing board and plan a pilot that will begin in January, which is a time when the existing programs normally turn over to new offerings anyway.
I think this was a good outcome. I'm glad to see such a strong emphasis on parental input to the program, and close scrutiny of how the finances would actually work out. While I'm sure it was disappointing to those who had been working on getting this going for September, it's better to get it "right" the first time it hits the schools, so it can be fully supported during the pilot.
I was pretty surprised by the outcome. The city in fact will not be sponsoring the program, at least not yet. There were several factors that rolled into this decision:
No parents were included in the definition of the pilot program. The head of the Covington PTA and the head of the Site Council spoke to the board about the fact that the parents have not been included in the process. Under the old system, the PTA selected all of the vendors who held the after-school courses. They hadn't been consulted at all by the pilot study group, nor had the Site Council.
The revenue split has left a number of unanswered question. The city has said their program would be roughly "cost neutral" to the parents, but they also asked vendors for a 40/60 revenue split. Generally this means the vendors will have to charge more to take home the same amount of money, as the schools previously only took 15% to cover the cost of janitors, lights, etc.
The district wasn't being compensated at all for lights, utilities, janitorial, etc. This would have resulted in a cost to the district of approximately $8,000 per site.
There was not a list of actual offerings available. The city hadn't finalized which classes might be offered- they only had a sample list. This made some folks uneasy, to try to approve something we didn't have all the details on.
The city program wouldn't be ready for launch until ~28 September. Normally these programs are ready right after labor day. This would create a gap for parents of students at Covington who rely on the after school program for child care.
On the flip side, the city would bring to the program some disciple that it was agreed would be useful, in terms of formalizing the list of children participating (making it easier to deal with emergency situations), background screening / fingerprinting of vendors, etc. While those are valuable "pluses" to the program, there were simply too many unanswered questions about how the program would actually come together. After a pretty vigorous discussion, it was decided that the PTA would launch the fall program offerings. The city will go back to the drawing board and plan a pilot that will begin in January, which is a time when the existing programs normally turn over to new offerings anyway.
I think this was a good outcome. I'm glad to see such a strong emphasis on parental input to the program, and close scrutiny of how the finances would actually work out. While I'm sure it was disappointing to those who had been working on getting this going for September, it's better to get it "right" the first time it hits the schools, so it can be fully supported during the pilot.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Financial Emergency
Last week at the Board Meeting, there was a vigorous discussion about declaring a financial emergency. Among other options, it would give the administration the ability to freeze step and column movement for teachers.
I won't go into the specifics of the step-and-column discussion, but I will say that I believe this went as well as it could. For those who didn't attend:
- the district was considering declaring an emergency
- the teachers and classified staff have said they feel they are being effectively blackmailed
- the district has decided not to act until the Aug 17 Board meeting. If no meaningful agreement has been reached by that time to close the budget gap, the district will act unilaterally to address the shortfall
My thoughts:
1) I agree with the decision to consider the motion now. It is important that the employees understand that there is a very real problem here. In start-ups where I have worked, wage concessions and other austerity measures were better received when folks have some visibility and have been given the opportunity to chime in.
2) in this case, the teachers and classified staff will have an opportunity to make meaningful concessions at negotiating sessions before Aug 17. They've said they pride themselves on the working relationship. It is time to see it in action.
3) I also agree with the decision to postpone the final vote until Aug 17. Give folks one last chance to address the problem.
Let's all follow this closely and see where it goes.
I won't go into the specifics of the step-and-column discussion, but I will say that I believe this went as well as it could. For those who didn't attend:
- the district was considering declaring an emergency
- the teachers and classified staff have said they feel they are being effectively blackmailed
- the district has decided not to act until the Aug 17 Board meeting. If no meaningful agreement has been reached by that time to close the budget gap, the district will act unilaterally to address the shortfall
My thoughts:
1) I agree with the decision to consider the motion now. It is important that the employees understand that there is a very real problem here. In start-ups where I have worked, wage concessions and other austerity measures were better received when folks have some visibility and have been given the opportunity to chime in.
2) in this case, the teachers and classified staff will have an opportunity to make meaningful concessions at negotiating sessions before Aug 17. They've said they pride themselves on the working relationship. It is time to see it in action.
3) I also agree with the decision to postpone the final vote until Aug 17. Give folks one last chance to address the problem.
Let's all follow this closely and see where it goes.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Is this really a fire?
This week brings us an article from the Town Crier covering a grand jury report on school districts in Santa Clara County. http://www.losaltosonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18113&Itemid=46
This report first surfaced in the Mercury News about two weeks ago: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12703076 and they followed up with an editorial today pointing out that the expenses in question make up a very small percentage of the school district budgets. http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_12804634
In our case at LASD, Administration makes up approximately 9% of our district budget. That's significantly lower than the state average - low enough that the district has been repeatedly recognized for it's fiscal responsibility.
I'm not suggesting that there is no room for improvement. During the spring discussions of the budget crisis, I was disappointed that administration declined to offer a reduction in their salaries as even a symbolic contribution to addressing the budget shortfall. This was particularly disappointing because the administration will be pressing hard for teachers to take either an outright pay cut, or some form of furlough days to help close the budget gap.
The Town Crier article, though would lead the casual observer to conclude that our district is equally flawed as other districts cited by the Grand Jury. The truth is that the Grand Jury made general observations, and that it requires more thoughtful analysis to see if our district is guilty of the practices they mention. My personal observations of the key items in the Grand Jury Report:
- The district does, indeed, spend a fair bit of money on legal fees- particularly as it relates oat the charter school. However, as I've observed in prior posts, I don't fault the district for this. I'm happy to engage in a longer discussion about why I see a need to defend against these suits rather than simply "cave in" and save the money. It might be interesting, though to assess whether there are more cost effective ways to get good representation. For example, are there parents who might be willing to perform this work pro bono or at a discounted rate? Are we making full use of the county attorneys that are available to us?
- The School Board receives $40 per meeting. I'm not sure what else goes into the $400/month figure the town crier cites, but I am certain it isn't cash compensation. $40/ meeting is very little money give the time I've seen people put into this activity. As one board member observed, it's usually not enough to cover the cost of a baby-sitter for the time he's at the meetings. In point of fact, 4 years at ~10 meetings per year would barely recoup the fees it costs to put one's name on a ballot to run in the first place. The Board performs a public service - to suggest that ours is living large on the $40/ meeting is somewhat amusing.
- Our Superintendent is, indeed, well paid. The comparison to the Mayor of San Jose, however, is irrelevant. There are CEO's who oversee fewer employees but earn more money. This is simply a question of what the market demands.
- On the other hand, annual raises not based on performance bother me. I'd like to see raises tied to performance.
- In terms of using search firms to recruit for the Superintendent-- I know of few companies that wouldn't look far and wide for the best candidate. The fees paid may need to be negotiated, but it's folly to suggest that we should restrict our search in an effort to economize.
What's the upshot? I think the article in Town Crier paints with too broad a brush. It lacks enough information to really determine if we have a problem here. Fortunately, I think most of the residents of our community are smart enough to figure that out.
By The Way: If you've never read a Grand Jury Report, you might be surprised at the (lack of) detail. While the report carriers plenty of tables to show district-by-district expenses in several categories, it does little or nothing to investigate the actual reasons for the discrepancies. For example, in comparing legal fees, it makes no assessment of the causes for outside legal representation, success rate of the firms, or whether the district was well served. They simply state how much each district spent. It is not what I'd call a careful analysis.
http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/jury/GJreports/2009/EducationDollars.pdf
This report first surfaced in the Mercury News about two weeks ago: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12703076 and they followed up with an editorial today pointing out that the expenses in question make up a very small percentage of the school district budgets. http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_12804634
In our case at LASD, Administration makes up approximately 9% of our district budget. That's significantly lower than the state average - low enough that the district has been repeatedly recognized for it's fiscal responsibility.
I'm not suggesting that there is no room for improvement. During the spring discussions of the budget crisis, I was disappointed that administration declined to offer a reduction in their salaries as even a symbolic contribution to addressing the budget shortfall. This was particularly disappointing because the administration will be pressing hard for teachers to take either an outright pay cut, or some form of furlough days to help close the budget gap.
The Town Crier article, though would lead the casual observer to conclude that our district is equally flawed as other districts cited by the Grand Jury. The truth is that the Grand Jury made general observations, and that it requires more thoughtful analysis to see if our district is guilty of the practices they mention. My personal observations of the key items in the Grand Jury Report:
- The district does, indeed, spend a fair bit of money on legal fees- particularly as it relates oat the charter school. However, as I've observed in prior posts, I don't fault the district for this. I'm happy to engage in a longer discussion about why I see a need to defend against these suits rather than simply "cave in" and save the money. It might be interesting, though to assess whether there are more cost effective ways to get good representation. For example, are there parents who might be willing to perform this work pro bono or at a discounted rate? Are we making full use of the county attorneys that are available to us?
- The School Board receives $40 per meeting. I'm not sure what else goes into the $400/month figure the town crier cites, but I am certain it isn't cash compensation. $40/ meeting is very little money give the time I've seen people put into this activity. As one board member observed, it's usually not enough to cover the cost of a baby-sitter for the time he's at the meetings. In point of fact, 4 years at ~10 meetings per year would barely recoup the fees it costs to put one's name on a ballot to run in the first place. The Board performs a public service - to suggest that ours is living large on the $40/ meeting is somewhat amusing.
- Our Superintendent is, indeed, well paid. The comparison to the Mayor of San Jose, however, is irrelevant. There are CEO's who oversee fewer employees but earn more money. This is simply a question of what the market demands.
- On the other hand, annual raises not based on performance bother me. I'd like to see raises tied to performance.
- In terms of using search firms to recruit for the Superintendent-- I know of few companies that wouldn't look far and wide for the best candidate. The fees paid may need to be negotiated, but it's folly to suggest that we should restrict our search in an effort to economize.
What's the upshot? I think the article in Town Crier paints with too broad a brush. It lacks enough information to really determine if we have a problem here. Fortunately, I think most of the residents of our community are smart enough to figure that out.
By The Way: If you've never read a Grand Jury Report, you might be surprised at the (lack of) detail. While the report carriers plenty of tables to show district-by-district expenses in several categories, it does little or nothing to investigate the actual reasons for the discrepancies. For example, in comparing legal fees, it makes no assessment of the causes for outside legal representation, success rate of the firms, or whether the district was well served. They simply state how much each district spent. It is not what I'd call a careful analysis.
http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/jury/GJreports/2009/EducationDollars.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
