[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index]

Re: Levy promises

I am reminded that the Republican caucuses were also conducted in
confidence.  However, I would think that the district has already spent
money it didn't have or it would not be asking for a 25% increase in the
supplemental levy.  I was not politely asking if the board was lying, I was
politely asking if the Board was serious about how it was planning to spend
the increase.  The district has asked the voters to approve a tax increase
without a developed budget, without any real knowledge of next years state
payments, and without having completed negotiations with the MEA.  We are
being asked to support teams at the Junior High without any assurance that
our support will actually be used for teams.  By August, the district could
very well find itself with a tax increase and unable to keep its promises to
the voters.

John Danahy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Curley" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: Levy promises

> John:
> The district cannot spend money that it doesn't have.  It
> cannot--well, perhaps, more appropriately it should not
> and does not have any history of--negotiating a pay
> increase with "one time" money.  Pay cannot be
> decreased, so any pay raise must be backed by revenue
> that occurs every year.  "One time money" is money such
> as grants, savings from this year's budget (no guarantee
> there will be similar savings next year), or the "refund" of
> PERSI money the district received last year.
> So, all the assumptions cannot be true--unless more
> permanent funding is made available from another
> source (other than the levy would provide).  The board
> has identified that there is $250,000 of additional revenue
> that had originally been set aside (in next year's budget)
> for the reserve fund (that the auditors say should be
> increased for fiscal viability and safety).  Given the
> district's financial difficulties, it is likely that the reserve
> will not be increased this year--at least not by that
> amount.  Additionally, there may be savings realized in
> this year's budget.  All the funds budgeted and available
> this year may not be spent because of increased fiscal
> restraint this year.  It is not unusual for the district to have
> some money carried over from year to year.  Actual
> expenditures have often varied from about 97% of budget
> to 101% of budget.  This year we may be lucky enough to
> have about 2% left over, although that remains to be seen.
> And that will have to be my last comment on a subject
> that deals with salary and negotiations, because as you
> well know negotiations are conducted in confidence and it
> is not appropriate to talk publically about what is or may
> or may not happen in the process.
> If you are politely trying to ask if the board is lying to the
> public, the answer is "no".
> Mike
> On 7 Apr 02, at 21:55, John Danahy wrote:
> Date forwarded: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 21:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
> From:           "John Danahy" <>
> To:             "Vision2020" <>
> Subject:        Levy promises
> Date sent:      Sun, 7 Apr 2002 21:55:57 -0700
> Forwarded by:
> The following question is based on two assumptions.  First
> is that if the levy passes, the district will actually spend
> the funds as it has stated, and second, that salary and
> contract negotiations with the MEA have not yet been
> finalized. ( or maybe even begun)
> The MEA will bargain for a salary increase plus benefits for
> its members. An across the board 3% salary increase plus
> benefits increases and steps and columns will cost @
> $500,000 to $600,000.  Where will these funds come from if
> the district cannot pay for current programs and has made
> promises as to how the levy will be used?
> Note: The above figure is a guesstimate on my part and
> assumes a contract settlement that pays a 3% raise.  The
> actual amount is not important to the answer.
> John Danahy

Back to TOC