“Special Interests” In Kettering Push Hard For New 6.9 Mill School Tax Levy

Wow. The Kettering School Establishment has conducted an impressive and expensive campaign to gain votes for the 6.9 mill school levy that is on tomorrow’s May 4 ballot here in Kettering.

I’m amazed that, over the last few weeks, I’ve received six different pieces of levy literature in the mail urging a “Yes” vote. The overall message of the levy campaign is that a) The district has already made big cuts in the budget b) Additional cuts to the budget would be “devastating” to the school program c) Failure of this levy would undermine property values and community stability. Each of these claims have gone unchallenged, unanalyzed, so far as I can see.

At the district’s web-site, Dr. Schoenlein, School Superintendent, writes about how the district “continues to tighten its belt.” I’m skeptical. The Kettering Board last year approved an advertisement campaign that promised the 6.9 renewal, approved last May, would result in “ZERO Increase In Taxes.” In actuality, the approval of the renewal empowered the county auditor to raise the effective rate for that levy by as much as 12% — depending on the fluctuation of the value of Kettering’s total tax base.

Regardless of the cuts referred to by Dr. Schoenlein, average class size in Kettering is small; 86.5% of the budget goes to personnel; teachers’ average annual salary is in excess of $69,000; administrator contracts recently averaged $103,000 per year; the five year budget projection predicts new pay increases in the next three year teachers’ contract to average 4.82% per year.

Regardless of the belt tightening, Kettering Schools, by asking for 6.9 additional mills, is breaking a promise made November, 2007, by the then superintendent. At that time, Robert Mengerink, as reported by the DDN, promised that, if the community would approve a 4.9 mill levy for new taxes, the school district would not ask for new money for four more years. But here, only two and one-half years after approving 4.9 mills of new taxes in November, 2007, the district is asking voters to approve an additional 6.9 mills.

The right way to analyze the 6.9 mill levy before Kettering voters is to see it as a request to maintain and enlarge the status quo. Historically, the 4.82% inflation in personnel expense per year, anticipated for the next teachers’ contract, I’m guessing, is about average. Of course, Kettering personnel and workers want to project the status quo — requiring unlimited tax increases — into the indefinite future. Kettering teachers pay $690 in union dues each year to protect their interests.

All five Kettering board members voted “Yes” for this lnew 6.9 mill levy. Even the most recently installed member, Jim Brown, elected last November in place of the incumbent, Frank Maus, voted to place this 6.9 mill levy on the ballot. Last November, Mr. Brown, to my surprise, as a board candidate challenger defended the “ZERO Increase” claim. And in this levy request and persuasion campaign, Mr. Brown, again, has aligned himself with the other board members.

In my failed campaign, last year, to be elected to the Kettering School Board, I attempted to raise real issues — like the need for a new levy, teachers’ pay, and the responsibility of school leadership to make long term plans. The incumbent board members refused to discuss any real issues, and, in fact, conspired to cancel a public meeting for Kettering Board candidates scheduled to be hosted by the Kettering Kiwanis Club.

Had I been elected to the board, I would not have voted for a new tax of 6.9 mills. I would have insisted on an amount lower than 6.9 mills — based on a more reasonable inflation rate for personnel expense — and would have refused to approve even a lesser amount without some agreement from the entire board to create a long term strategic plan with the purpose of, over time, fundamentally reforming the Kettering system.

Board President Jim Trent seems to have forgotten his reasons for opposing a new teachers’ pay raise just last year. As reported in the DDN, Trent said, at the time, “After receiving feedback from many of our citizens, observing the latest economic news, and giving this topic an unbelievable amount of thought, I have reached the conclusion that because of the current economic turmoil, the time is not right to approve an increase in pay for anyone.”

In this levy campaign Kettering voters are being manipulated by professional advertisement methods with the aim to persuade, not to inform. From the view of the “special interests” pushing this levy, this makes sense. But what should give Kettering voters pause is the lack of balance — voters should expect an elected school board to not simply attempt to manipulate or influence the public, but also to provide the public with the total information needed to allow an informed decision.

The need for a levy is based on a five year budget projection. And this projection calls for increases, the last three years, in personnel expenses of 4.82% each year. Since personnel accounts for 86.5% of the budget, this inflation of payment to personnel involves many millions of dollars.

The five year projection shows that in 2009 there was $65.6 million paid in salary and benefits to personnel. The projection shows that in 2014 salary and benefits for personnel will rise to $83 million out of a $96 million budget. It demonstrates the power of compounded interest and shows over five years the district, for increases in personnel expenses, will need a total of $49.7 million in additional income. By comparison, over the same five year period, the forecast shows that only an additional $2.8 million will be needed for new supplies and materials.

Concerning this five year projection, The Kettering Board could have taken a stand and, could have insisted that personnel expense become frozen or be inflated at a lower rate. But such a stance would have been unpopular with the “special interest” establishment that runs Kettering Schools, and, of which, this current board obviously aligns and identifies with.

Board President Jim Trent, in the Blue Ribbon Report, indicated that rather than making cuts, this 6.9 mill levy is an effort to give Kettering citizens the opportunity to maintain the status quo. He reported that citizens asked him, “Why would you make cuts when you haven’t given us a chance to say that we want to fund our schools at a level that will keep quality alive in our district.”

What is missing from the campaign is transparency. For example, the levy campaign reports that administrators have had a pay freeze, but fails to mention that in the last fifteen contracts approved for administrators, the average annual salary was $103,000. Not communicated in this levy campaign is the fact that, because the value of the total tax base in Kettering is declining, the effective tax rates needed to raise sufficient revenue is increasing. Regardless of “no new taxes,” the obligations to raise a fixed revenue for previously approved levies and bonds required the effective rate of Kettering school property tax rates to increase from last last year to this year by 2.34%.

As of April 13, the Citizens for Kettering Schools Political Action Committee has spent $18,744. By the time all of the bills are added up, I’m guessing this will be the most money spent on a levy effort in Kettering history.

The biggest contributors to the levy campaign are the unions. Kettering Education Association, representing Kettering teachers, donated $1000 and OAPSE, representing the bus drivers, custodians and cafeteria workers, donated $1,500. Most people in employment of Kettering Schools make donations to the the levy Political Action Committee via payroll deductions of a dollar or two every pay check. Here is a list of the larger donors.

This professional levy campaign is accurately seen as an effort by a “special interest” — those directly benefiting from Kettering Schools such as school employees, school vendors, school parents — to persuade the community to maintain the established practices of the status quo, including generous raises for teachers and administrators.

In the levy campaign, particularly impressive are the full color literature testimonials from two different Kettering couples. The Mike and Victoria Delman testimonial includes a nice picture of their four handsome children, the last of whom graduated from KHS in 2006. The Delman’s write, “Our children received outstanding educations from skilled, competent teachers here in Kettering. We feel strongly that today’s children deserve these same opportunities.” The Delmans report that “The schools have tightened their belt and cut millions from the budget. Further cuts would dramatically harm present and future generations of Kettering students.”

A second Kettering couple, Sondra and Harry Vearn, have a testimonial on a different flyer. The Vearns write, “We don’t take stability for granted in Kettering. That’s why we’re voting for Issue 3. …We’re protecting the value of our home and — most importantly — stability throughout Kettering.”

The Delmans and the Vearns both emphasize that the district has made cuts in the budget. A third flyer emphasizes that “Kettering Schools Have Slashed 7.6 million from the Budget in The Past Four years.”

The last campaign literature I received was a sealed letter from the principal of the local elementary school, Oakview School, Margaret Engelhardt. She writes, “If the levy does not pass, the consequences will be devastating … the ability to continue providing top-quality programs and services to our students will be severely compromised.” These are other campaign literature paid for by Citzens for Kettering Schools — see here and here.

Tomorrow, Kettering voters will decide. I’m impressed by the many people like the Dearns and the Vearns who have had positive experiences with Kettering Schools and seek to give Kettering Schools their wholehearted support. And I understand why the Kettering teachers’ unions and unclassified school workers’s union are supporting the levy and why many teachers, school employees and parents are volunteering their time to help pass the levy.

Comments in this campaign literature seem overly dramatic. If this levy fails, the board will simply try again, perhaps with a lower millage amount, this coming November.

It is in the public interest to make a long term plan for Kettering Schools that will make Kettering a leader in public education. I was a teacher for thirty years, retiring from West Carrollton Schools, and, I know that many teachers and administrators in Kettering agree with the point of view I developed from thirty years of public school bureaucracy and hierarchy: We must do much better in public education.

The issue I want to emphasize is the fact that the status quo in public education — even in those districts deemed “excellent” — is not worthy of projecting into the future. It is a very faulty system, and falls far short of what it should and could be. But it can only be changed via an awakened public. We cannot project this system and its expenses into the future another ten years. We need a much better system — one that will produce much higher quality and at much lower expense.

It seems clear that, at present, special interest controls Kettering Schools — not public interest. But this could change quickly. With the right community leadership, citizens like the Dearns and the Vearns, who have a sincere interest in quality public education, I believe, can become energized to improve and transform the status quo.

The money crisis of a recession, I hope, might awaken the public, and motivate the Kettering community to take an in-depth interest in Kettering public education. The answer to meaningful public education reform is via a grassroots’ awakening.

Written By Mike Bock