How much to enjoy the view?

What is your price? Is it twenty grand? Is it two grand? What is the amount of money it would take for you to put a gas and oil well in your back yard? Now imagine you make forty-five million dollars per year. Is twenty grand still as enticing? Is two grand? The reality of the situation is this: 2 weeks of 24-hour-a-day drilling, twenty years of pumping, worries and property value depreciation for wells that if we are lucky will produce twenty-thousand dollars per year for the district. But if we are like typical wells in the area, they will generate about two thousand dollars per year. Two thousand dollars added to a forty-five million dollar budget. Is that worth the drawbacks?



I hear the supporters already. They are like drones in my head. "We promised we would look for alternative revenues" Let me put this in simple terms. This is the amount of money that one $100,000.00 house in CF generates with a years worth of property taxes. This is not a viable source of alternative revenue. When we were promised a looksy at alternative revenues, I expected something like the income tax on wage earners, or the shared county sales tax, or charging a real fee for pay-to-play (current pay-to-play collections amount to about half of the athletic directors salary). Someone referred to the board as a "bunch of lay people". Sometimes it takes someone looking in from the outside to notice the waste, mismanagement, and middleman overload. There is a larger administrator to teacher ratio and administrator to pupil ratio than there was 20 years ago with twice as many students. Why do we need more management for fewer students? There is a saying I keep hearing over and over. Bad teachers become administrators, and bad administrators become consultants. There, I said it. Of course I generalize. There are some good administrators out there. We even employ quite a few. But why do administration numbers go up and up with student population declining? Remember? Student population declined to the point that we had to close two schools. And guess what? Add one more new position to the "bring 'em back" from project recovery list. I see it this way, the positive balance we ended with this year before the last minute debt was paid, could have kept Newberry and Sill open this year. I know, I know, get over it Kellie. Ironic how last week I read an article from an education organization in my packet from the district. It dealt with problems children experience when changing schools.

What I'm trying to point out is this- Whether it's putting oil and gas wells on public property, closing schools, or putting towers up in somebody's skyline, our district is making decisions that affect some peoples personal lives. Sometimes money isn't the only thing at stake. Property values, emotional well being, and being able to enjoy your own neighborhood without looking at an eye sore and worry about a safety hazard for me is worth more than the little bit of money earned or saved. And I can't tell you how angry I was writing a check to the Summit County Fiscal Officer last week knowing we had enough money left over this year to have kept my sons' school open and saved us the emotional turmoil its closing caused. And bonus for all you Kellie haters- you wouldn't be hearing my contraire views all the time. I'd have sat down and shut up.But I have learned the hard way that if you support levies and always pay your taxes on time and believe the promises made to you, you can still get screwed. I feel robbed. People living on the edge of the proposed gas and oil wells have the gun to their head right now. You could be the next victim.







Click here for more photos of local wells and the locations where our school district would like to put them.

Pressing Issues

Ahh the press. Don't ya just love 'em? Let's start with the Beacon. First they print an inaccurate article regarding the proposed gas wells. Then they print an inaccurate retraction. I wont go into detail here. Check out Molly Benedum's blog for details. I am hoping the public forum August 9th will clear up the confusion. If confusion is what you want to call it.

Now to touch on the Falls News coverage. A quote from the board president stating "the board used the December 2005 evaluations" of the CEO and CFO is absolutely untrue. In executive session June 28th the board was handed a paper prepared by a fellow board member and told "this is what I think we should give them". She wasn't even using the proper base salary for our CEO until I pointed it out to our CFO Monday.

The board was working on our own evaluation format and preparing goals to use for an evaluation. If you listen to the tape of the July 19th meeting (public request) you will hear the explanation of how the board member responsible for the raises came to the amount proposed. You will hear a lot of I checked this and I compared that. You will not hear about anything the board checked into or compared. Since three people seemed prepared for these raises at Wednesdays' meeting but not Monday when I talked to them, I can only assume that some board members did discuss a raise. When and where I have no idea. I wasn't invited to that meeting. I also know that another board member was on vacation from our last meeting through this week, so I can safely assume she wasn't discussing previous evaluations with other board members. So the question is when did the "board" of three discuss these evaluations? Or did the Falls News make a mistake? Even the CEO and CFO both admitted to me that they were surprised to see this item on the agenda considering they had not asked for raises.I'm really tired of playing this game. Voters and tax payers should know that three board members are making all decisions and according to statements made to the press, having meetings and discussing matters unbeknownst to anyone except themselves. Is this the transparency you were promised?

Another subject I'd like to touch on is the assumption that once a decision is made by the board it should be supported by the entire board regardless of a personal vote. This is not in my nature. I cannot vote no on raises and then pretend I like the idea and be supportive of it. Who does this benefit? The only way for voters to make informed decisions is to be clear on whom supports what ideas. I refuse to confuse people by pretending I support a decision I voted against. I'll blog about gas wells later this week. I must prepare for the jolly agenda meeting. Ta ta.

If I Were A Rich Man, Deedle Deedle, Diedle Dum

This will be short and sweet. I am weary but I felt I should share the news ASAP. 3.3% raises for the CEO and CFO are in effect as of August 1, 2006. I swear I saw union members licking their chops. This totally negates the savings gained in Project Recovery. It's like this- the pay freeze voluntarily taken last year was just made up for.

Beam me up Scotty….

Below are Emails and scanned copies of the documents I received regarding the proposed wage increases for the CEO and CFO. Tell me if you can decipher the proposed increase from the information provided. I have been accused of spreading misinformation. I believe my previous blog stated “As of posting time, I have not received a return phone call from the board president to clarify this issue. It looks as if the raises will be 4.5%.” Before reading on, please scroll down and click on Agenda Attachment #12. Let me know what you would have assumed from reading the information provided. This is the only agenda I’ve been provided where the yearly amount was not provided.

First I asked a bookkeeper, an accountant, and a really smart dude that I know to take a look. They all assumed 4.5%. Next, I called our board president. He informed me he was surprised to see this item on the agenda upon returning from vacation. He said he looked over the enclosed attachment and could not figure out what the proposed raise was. I then called our veteran board member. He thought it looked like the raise was 4.2 or 4.5%. But no one was sure. I called our CFO. She told me that she was baffled by the chart as well. But then she highlighted Akron and it became clear to her it was 3.3%. Our board president then called me back and verified it was 3.3%. I then heard from the board member that proposed the raises and was given the figure 3.3% “In terms of CEO’s salary, that would be an increase of $3470. For CFO, it would be $2706.” Why the total yearly amounts I requested was omitted from the response is left to conjecture. I also asked why this information wasn’t included on the agenda. Response- “ The board item regarding…proposed raises is framed the same way the motion for other administrative raises was.”

Ummmm I don’t know when she was voting on raises tied to the consumer price index for wage earners and clerical workers (for urban districts, no less), but I never did. Every administrative raise I have voted on so far has had an attachment with the exact yearly amount or the exact yearly amount printed directly on the agenda. The language on all other raises is very clear. See below for the language of the proposed raises. But the most telling part of all this is the fact that 4 of 5 board members were surprised this is on the agenda. Why you ask? Because we have had almost no discussion on this issue. This was concocted and proposed by one member, knowing another would be absent for the upcoming meeting. It will be a travesty if this is approved on Wednesday.

As I said before and the board attorney clarified- We need to give our employees goals, evaluate their performance regarding those goals, and most importantly- allow union negotiations to take place before handing them a trump card. They’re already ticked off about the previous administrative increases. And then there was this letter from the CEO rebutting the union president's comments at a Board meeting that won't help matters any (see link below). Why add fuel to the fire? How can our CEO successfully attempt to negotiate with a 3.3% raise on his back going in? Not to mention how this amount totally negates any savings gained in project recovery concessions. We bypassed giving raises last year to make up for it this year? That’s some savvy thinking.

I must stop here before my head explodes. I’m sure this will prove to be a very interesting meeting.

Agenda Language for “Board Business” Item A:

Adjust the 2006-2007 school year salaries for the Superintendent and Treasurer according to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), effective August 1, 2006. Increases will be based on the most recent (May 2006) annual local area (Cleveland-Akron, OH) data. Details may be found in attachment #12.

Agenda Attachment #12

Email to board members and the response

Holland's letter to the CFEA

Let's Give Away the Farm

Wednesday’s agenda was delivered to me today. Pretty mundane stuff. Oh, except for the raises for the CEO and CFO. The strangest part is at least two board members were not a part of the process. On June 28th during executive session we were handed a pay scale that a fellow board member had made up. I was informed that it was based on the administrative salary schedule our CEO formulated two months ago. I questioned the timeliness of this move considering number one- we had not given our CEO and CFO goals, two- we have not come up with an evaluation form, let alone evaluated them, and three- we have negotiations with three unions coming up in March. How can our CEO manage successful negotiations that would be advantageous to the taxpayer, after handing out raises to the administrative staff and getting a raise himself.

I would love to be able to tell you what the proposed raises are, but this information was sent in the form of a consumer price index chart for wage earners. As of posting time, I have not received a return phone call from the board president to clarify this issue. It looks as if the raises will be 4.5%. I know that’s just like the raise you got this year right? You see the amount was veiled for a reason. Someone doesn’t want the average Joe to know how much they are getting. I mean, every other contract we approve has the yearly wage plainly visible.

But the real kicker comes earlier in the agenda. We are laying off two food service employees "due to a lack of funds and a projected deficit". So, as you can see, as I’ve stated many times in the past, it’s not the kids that are important. It’s how much money people can earn of our tax money. So next year, you will pay more for your kids breakfast, you’ll pay more for your kids milk, you’ll be short two employees, but our employees will be paid well.

Oh and the board will be back to the voters for more money next year too. See you at the polls.

Table 6. Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W): Selected areas, all items index Scroll down about 2/3 of the page to the line "Cleveland-Akron, OH." This line was highlighted in the information in our packet.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Truth

I am dedicating this blog to all who doubt my intentions, predict my agenda, or question my integrity. I am asked by many people why I want to close Silver Lake Elementary. I am also asked once in a while when I'm going to reopen Newberry. Neither is going to happen. I will however once and for all try to put this to rest.

But let's start at the beginning. I was just a normal old Mom, volunteering at my sons' school when one day a friend ran out of the school and said- "Did ya hear they're going to close Newberry?" Needless to say I knew nothing of the sort. I was shocked. I wanted to know why any school was being closed and more importantly to me, why Newberry? After all, the school originally designated for my address was already closed (Bode). So I decided some research needed to be done. I couldn't believe that yet again the same neighborhood had to be affected by school closings. I went into this thinking that if a school needs to be closed, I needed to be sure that Newberry was the right one. After much public request, report gathering from the ODE, and much help from a dear friend of mine and her skill at making the confusing understandable, it became apparent that cost savings was not the true reason Newberry was picked. Before I go on, I want you to realize that ALL CF City schools were researched, not just Newberry and SL. The same criteria were used for each and every building.

The links below will provide you the very same information I used to come to the following conclusions. Our district has consistently spent an average of $1500.00 per pupil more on SL than any other elementary school in our district. This is not due to salaries, wages, and benefits. Newberry was a newer, handicapped accessible, more cost efficient building. FallsMom put together reports that made much of this public information understandable. If there is an outcry for these dummy proof reports, I will resurrect them. They basically cut out the BS and all info can be verified.

What most people failed to see was that SL was the most inefficient school to run in utilities, bussing, per pupil expenditures, I could go on and on. I did the homework once. This is the last time I will "prove" myself to the set of people that think I have some sort of evil plans for the school district. My decision to run for the board of Education was based largely on the fact that I feel my kids are getting the short end of the stick and I want to see it stop. Not just in the per pupil spending area, but in the teacher to student ratio area, district services area, bussing area…

You see, for me it does all come down to the tax rate issue. We all pay the same millage rate to the schools. Why should more of my dollars year after year after year go to any particular area in our district? And while we're on the tax talk, I also want to point out that another reason I chose to run for this position is because I am painfully aware of the issues many CF residents and a few SL residents face when property taxes go up and incomes don't.

And yes I am a bit cynical when it comes to SL. You see I have lived the inequities. I went to school here. And while some may say I'm paranoid, the numbers in the links show that for the ten years reported our district has favored SL elementary over all others. So the recorded history and my own experiences tell me it probably always has. Would you have me pretend this doesn't exist? The piece I found most telling is this. When the numbers we reported to the state were made available last fall (well after Newberry closed) there was a glaring discrepancy between the enrollment numbers used in project recovery and the numbers reported to the state of Ohio. It seems Newberry and Sill were the only schools with underreported students. You may not find this odd but I do. You see enrollment was one of the issues affecting the closings. Newberry actually had more students than reported and all other elementary schools had less than reported. 'Scuse me for being cynical.

On the subject of mentioning other Board members by name, I have been told by those people that if I do, I risk getting slapped with a libel and/or slander suit. In fact, I shouldn’t have even alluded to any of them in my statements. I apologize for that.

As for the drilling issue, I pointed out and it was reprinted here by ratpick that I have a contact in SL that is already involved with surveying for drilling in SL. I don't understand how this makes it a CF vs. SL issue. I have a contact there that could offer insight as to the viability of gas and oil on a property we own near his current surveying. What a terrible idea that was. I also asked about Roberts, which is in the Falls and a school I attended. What is my ulterior motive there?

Lastly to clear up any hurt feelings I may have caused, I respond everyone in comments with one posting. They are assumed by most to be individual comments. I did not realize the need to clarify this for newbies. When a new name starts your response ends. Also generally you are referred to as your blogger name. Most people don't have a Who's Who of blogging. So if you picked ratpick, well, sorry.

Ohio Department of Education Reports

Enrollment by Building (95/96 - 04/05)
Expenditures per Pupil by Building (95/96 - 04/05) use the zoom tool for this one!
Teacher Counts by Building (00/01 - 04/05)
Average Teacher Salary by Building (00/01 - 04/05)
Enrollment by Building (2004/2005) to compare with the project recovery figures

Enrollment Figures from Project Recovery (2004/2005)
Complete Project Recovery Tour use this to remind yourself of all the cost savings that we're not taking advantage of anymore

The Wishing Well

Wow. We got more press this week than I know what to do with. Let's start with Saturday's Beacon. I guess the Canadians don't have a high standard of fact checking. First let's start with the well installation. The drilling goes on 24 hours a day for 5 to 10 days. It is a very noisy disruptive experience involving lots of dust and debris as well. Have you heard of an automatic jack pump? It's the thingy that goes up and down on a well. Some dude who really digs wells was telling me that he can't believe the wells he services has never had a child killed. Seems these pumps will be sitting there off and peaceful, and kick on with no warning. He also added that they are always fenced in but Newberry is a pretty kid friendly place. There are fumes and generally the landscaping can't survive the muck and fumes. Weeds seem to thrive at them though. Go figure. And just because you wont have to wake up and look at it… someone will.

I can't wait 'til Monday so I can find out where the $50K savings each month is happening. I checked Bolich's gas usage in FY 04. The entire year was $36K. Me thinks somebody misled the Beacon before he left for Alaska. Yes the truth will be hard to get to for a couple weeks. Maybe some sled dogs can race us a retraction. The board was told that the building on the site would receive free gas. Not both, but one or the other. Both sites marked are Newberry territory. Or are we going to run a pipe through Newberry hill and the track to Bolich? Free gas for Newberry is hardly beneficial to the taxpayer. We already give the Akron children attending Summit Christian school free water courtesy of the CF taxpayers. And reduced electric. And they have the nerve to brag that they "let" CF Park and Rec use "their" water! They let our city services use the free water our city gives them. How gracious of them. Rant over.

The board was also told that the wells could generate between $7K and $70K per year. Year. For anyone not listening I'll say it again. $7K to $70K per year. As it stands right now, even that piddly amount of money would go to the CF Foundation. Hardly beneficial to little old Fannie FixedIncome.As for the CF Foundation receiving the funds… I suspect this is an effort to keep something alive that is not self-supporting. Recent minutes from meeting's show problems with fundraisers and finances. Efforts are currently underway to bring the fund back into the fold of the District. I'm tired of wasting time on ventures like this that will do little to benefit the taxpayer and make an eyesore out of a wonderful piece of real estate. I can really save us $50K per month- by cutting about 7.5 administrators.

Who's on first?

I listened the official tape and made a transcript of a portion of last weeks board meeting. It makes for some pretty comical reading. I'm keeping this short because I want you to click on the link and tell me what you think. I tried to make it easy to follow by color coding and initialing. Keep in mind I did this transcript and it is to the best of my ability. I do not know how to type so it was challenging. Plus too many rock concerts have compromised my hearing. I especially want to hear from the people who seem to know it all. Mike, CFinformed, and firefighter- I am waiting with baited breath.Remember-this is a portion of the June 28th meeting. Now imagine an hour and a half of this.

Partial transcript of 6-28-06 BOE Meeting