vision2020
Re: Showers in Moscow
Phil, I'm interested in your post from Wed. afternoon. I've gotten
involved with a Moscow School District planning committee and local
community groups to try and better educate myself, as well as give
ongoing input to some of these same issues (and more) from a
community member-at-large perspective.
Can you elaborate on your comments with respect to your sense of
civic duty? I think we would agree that we elect the School Board to
represent us well with sound fiscal management, no? But at what
point, if that's deemed unsatisfactory, and in what way, do you feel we
should hold them accountable? Awake, J.D. Wulfhorst
On 30 Oct 2002, at 14:22, Cjsnightclub@aol.com wrote:
> --part1_134.16d552d4.2af18b58_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Wake Up Moscow!
>
> We were all lead into the showers, "voting booth" handed a bar of
> soap, "ballot" and it dropped to the floor. The school board is
> walking up behind you. Got a visual?
>
> There comes a time to say no.
>
> The school board has said one thing and done another. I have a
> chronological statement of events. The school board has now proven
> that what they say is not what they mean or what they will do with our
> money. I think it is high time that they, like us, must learn to live
> and operate within a "shrinking" budget. For if it was truly managed
> wisely and honestly they would NEVER find themselves in a pickle. They
> have more dollars than hundreds of other school districts across the
> country. They seem to make it. Deal with it.
>
> Here comes the chronological history:
>
> November - levy refused about 3-1. That included money ear marked for
> salary increases.
>
> November thru February - public meetings and discussions about how
> much is needed to run the district for the next year (or perhaps two).
> Lots of finger pointing and distrust.
>
> February - the school board decides to submit another levy for 1.1
> million and "advertises" how the money will be spent. NO MENTION of
> salary increases for staff/teachers. By the way, teachers and union
> reps attend ALL the public meetings and speak out loudly on every
> topic. EXCEPT, they DO NOT ask for the levy amount to be increased to
> include SALARY-BENEFIT INCREASES.
>
> March to July - board negotiates next years contract with the union.
> (Mike Curly) is lead negotiator and has the expressed approval of the
> WHOLE BOARD that (ONE) NO SALARY INCREASES AND (TWO) NO SIGNIFICANT
> GOVERNING AUTHORITY WILL BE GIVEN TO THE UNION THIS YEAR! (UNLESS)
> they give something back.
>
> July 1 - Candice Donicht becomes superintendent. Mike Curly is
> officially no longer a board member. He could continue to negotiate on
> behalf of the board. Donicht and the new chair see to it that he
> DOESN'T. The soap just hit the floor.
>
> August, September, October - news stories say, "Union and board are
> "getting close" and "made a deal."" That includes: SALARY INCREASES,
> BENEFIT INCREASES, and the UNION is given MORE AUTHORITY over how the
> District is run in ways that can eventually cost the district MORE
> MONEY or require children to be moved so that teachers don't have to
> teach more than 23 kids in any one class. (number may vary depending
> on age of children). The board is now standing directly behind you!
>
> So - there it is. All the hoopla about increasing taxes to be able to
> do certain things, then spend some of the money (approx.) $200,000.00
> on salary and benefits in this flippin economy! Oh, by the way, the
> state cut funds to the Moscow School District this year because of
> lower enrollment and other factors. We also have MORE teachers-by
> about 25-30 than the state provides any funding for. So - now we are
> going to limit how many students, teachers will teach so we can keep
> all these unnecessary teachers on the payroll. Do you really think the
> state and federal formulas for student and teacher ratios is wrong? I
> don't think so!
>
> Does anybody else see the "top heaviness?" I think it is high time
> that they learn to live in their budgets. They have more than the
> state figures they need and WAY more than many, many other school
> districts in the nation.
>
> Live with it!
>
> Phil Roderick
>
> --part1_134.16d552d4.2af18b58_boundary
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
> FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Wake Up Moscow! <BR> <BR> We were all lead into
> the showers, "voting booth" handed a bar of soap, "ballot" and it
> dropped to the floor. The school board is walking up behind you. Got a
> visual?<BR> <BR> There comes a time to say no.<BR> <BR> The school
> board has said one thing and done another. I have a chronological
> statement of events. The school board has now proven that what they
> say is not what they mean or what they will do with our money. I think
> it is high time that they, like us, must learn to live and operate
> within a "shrinking" budget. For if it was truly managed wisely and
> <B>honestly</B> they would NEVER find themselves in a pickle. They
> have more dollars than hundreds of other school districts across the
> country. They seem to make it. Deal with it. <BR> <BR> Here comes the
> chronological history:<BR> <BR> <B>November </B>- levy refused about
> 3-1. That included money ear marked for salary increases.<BR> <BR>
> <B>November thru February </B>- public meetings and discussions about
> how much is needed to run the district for the next year (or perhaps
> two). Lots of finger pointing and distrust.<BR> <BR> <B>February -</B>
> the school board decides to submit another levy for 1.1 million and
> "advertises" how the money will be spent. NO MENTION of salary
> increases for staff/teachers. By the way, teachers and union reps
> attend ALL the public meetings and speak out loudly on every topic.
> EXCEPT, they DO NOT ask for the levy amount to be increased to include
> SALARY-BENEFIT INCREASES.<BR> <BR> <B>March to July</B> - board
> negotiates next years contract with the union. (Mike Curly) is lead
> negotiator and has the expressed approval of the WHOLE BOARD that
> (ONE) NO SALARY INCREASES AND (TWO) NO SIGNIFICANT GOVERNING AUTHORITY
> WILL BE GIVEN TO THE UNION THIS YEAR! (UNLESS) they give something
> back.<BR> <BR> <B>July 1</B> - Candice Donicht becomes superintendent.
> Mike Curly is officially no longer a board member. He could continue
> to negotiate on behalf of the board. Donicht and the new chair see to
> it that he DOESN'T. <B><I>The soap just hit the floor.</B><BR> <BR>
> <B></I>August, September, October </B>- news stories say, "Union and
> board are "getting close" and "made a deal."" That includes: SALARY
> INCREASES, BENEFIT INCREASES, and the UNION is given MORE AUTHORITY
> over how the District is run in ways that can eventually cost the
> district MORE MONEY <B>or</B> require children to be moved so that
> teachers don't have to teach more than 23 kids in any one class.
> (number may vary depending on age of children). <B><I>The board is now
> standing directly behind you!</B></I><BR> <BR> So - there it is. All
> the hoopla about increasing taxes to be able to do certain things,
> then spend some of the money (approx.) $200,000.00 on salary and
> benefits in this flippin economy! Oh, by the way, the state cut funds
> to the Moscow School District this year because of lower enrollment
> and other factors. We also have MORE teachers-by about 25-30 than the
> state provides any funding for. So - now we are going to limit how
> many students, teachers will teach so we can keep all these
> unnecessary teachers on the payroll. Do you really think the state and
> federal formulas for student and teacher ratios is wrong? I don't
> think so! <BR> <BR> Does anybody else see the "top heaviness?" I think
> it is high time that they learn to live in their budgets. They have
> more than the state figures they need and WAY more than many, many
> other school districts in the nation.<BR> <BR> Live with it!<BR> <BR>
> Phil Roderick</FONT></HTML>
>
> --part1_134.16d552d4.2af18b58_boundary--
>
Back to TOC