DaytonOs is trying out Google Voice. At the end of each article, at least for the next few weeks, I am adding a Google widget that will allow free telephone calls to my computer. These calls will be recorded and after I review the calls I will post them as vocal comments at the end of the post. I’m wondering if the opportunity to leave a vocal comment might expand interest in participating. I’ve put an example here. I’m asking participants to identify themselves with a consistent name and to tell the location they are calling from.
And if you wish to talk with me, in person, recorded for future use, I should be available at this Google number every weekday morning from 8:30 – 11:00. Give me a call and we can talk. You might want to respond to previous comments or previous posts. I’ll record your call and, eventually, if I have sufficient participation, I’m thinking I will try to put the calls together as a faux radio program.
I’ll be taking live calls each Monday – Thursday from 8:30 – 11:00. The number is 937-985-3737. If I am not able to answer, you may still leave a message.
I’ve received two pieces of mail, so far, urging me to increase revenue to Kettering Schools by voting “yes” on the May 4 ballot to raise property taxes in Kettering by 6.9 mills. Both mailings emphasize that increased funding for Kettering Schools is required to assure “stability” in the community. Both emphasize that a “yes” vote is an “investment.”
This glossy three color trifold describes the 6.9 mill tax increase as “an investment that will keep Kettering stable in a time when that’s more important than ever.”The second mailing features a color photo of Board President and former Kettering Superintendent, Jim Trent, along with former Kettering Superintendent, Chet Rousch. The letter says, “Our school have been powerful forces for stability and progress in our great community. Today that stability is threatened.”
The two pieces of mail already sent to me had to cost over $1.00 already. These letters are part of a professional campaign. (See p. 4.) Different demographic groups are targeted. I got the Trent / Rousch letter, no doubt, because I am among the Kettering voters age 62 or older. The letter emphasizes, “In some communities, senior citizens are not always considered to be supporters of the schools. Not so in Kettering.”
This levy campaign is paid for by money raised mostly from the “special interest” group that will most directly financially benefit — school employees and the teacher’s union. The Citizens for Kettering Schools, a Political Action Committee, usually spends over $15,000 on a levy campaign, and raises money via paycheck deduction of school employees. And, amazingly, this PAC last year paid no sales tax on many items it purchased.
Over 86% of income to the school district goes to personnel. And the five year forecast, used as the basis for the 6.9 mill tax increase request, shows a yearly increase of 4.82% in personnel expense. Teachers in Kettering now earn, on average, $63,839 each year. Recent administrator contracts averaged $103,000, each year. Teachers and administrators receive generous health and retirement benefits, on average, in excess of 35% of the stated earning.
The definition of “stability” advanced in this campaign, evidently, is one that foresees projecting the status quo indefinitely into the future. And, if you are a Kettering school employee, isn’t that a lovely thought that 4.82% increases will be indefinitely compounded on one’s salary?
The trifold says the truth, when it states, “Our schools are at a crossroads….It’s more apparent than ever that if we want to keep good schools, we’re going to have to do it locally.”
Yes. But doing it “locally” means more than local taxpayers forever accommodating requests for more taxes. taxpayers have also read the Tax Shark info before paying taxes. Doing it “locally” means local schools should be under control of the local community. This 6.9 mill tax increase request — being pushed hard by a special interest that will directly benefit by its passage — raises an important question: Who’s in charge of Kettering Schools?
It seems impossible to me that the Kettering community, during this recession, would democratically choose to increase personnel expenses in local schools by 4.82 % compounded yearly. And Board President, Jim Trent, seems to have changed his mind. One year ago, Mr. Trent voted against approving a new teacher’s contract that showed pay increases for two years. Trent was quoted by the DDN as saying, “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.”
Stability and quality, I believe, can happen via democratic processes. The notion that “stability” requires capitulation to the demands of a special interest is not the basis for a long term solution. In my campaign, last fall, to be elected to the Kettering School Board, I emphasized that, as a community, we should work for the transformation of our system of public education, and that we should create a long term plan for change.
Stability, I believe, can come from long term planning, and from local control that assures that public education in Kettering is focused on promoting the general good in the community, not simply promoting the desires of a “special interest.” What is needed is the formation of a long term plan to fundamentally change the structure of public education in Kettering. I believe it is possible to create a long term plan that will both decrease costs and greatly increase quality.
Written by Mike Bock
New Feature! Voice comment by clicking the button below. Google will connect your call for free!
In Kettering, during this time of economic recession, the fact that the public is being pushed to approve a new 6.9 mill school tax issue raises the question: Who is in charge of Kettering Schools?
Kettering Schools’ anticipated budget shortfall is testimony to the power, over time, of compound interest. The five year forecast, that justifies the need for a 6.9 mill levy, shows increase in personnel expenses compounded 4.82% each year, for three years. The fact that 86% of the budget goes to personnel means this inflating of salaries carries a huge expense.
One year ago, when Board President, Jim Trent, voted against approving a new teacher’s contract that showed a 1.5% increase each year for two years, he was quoted by the DDN as saying, “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.”
The economic climate has not improved, but, now, Mr. Trent is supporting a 6.9 mill increase in tax with, basically, the purpose of giving teachers and administrators new pay increases. He is quoted in The Blue Ribbon Report saying that, without sufficient funds, cuts to program will need to be made that, “will seriously impact the quality of the education we can provide to our students.”
The message of the levy campaign is an implicit threat that 6.9 mills in additional tax increase is needed — or, the educational program in Kettering will suffer. And, as I see it, Mr. Trent is describing a budget strategy in which increases in teacher and administrator salaries have first priority, and, in the case where there is insufficient funds both to give salary increases and to maintain program, then, it sounds to me, Trent feels salary increases must have the priority. How else can his advocacy of the 6.9 mill levy be explained?
Why present a plan calling for 4.82% increases, each year, in personnel pay — causing a deficit needing 6.9 mills of additional tax to fill? Why not present the public a more modest tax increase request — based upon freezing changes in the teacher and administrator contracts for a few years? It seems to me, a system with leadership responsive to local control would have made such a choice. A teacher contract frozen for three years would save, I figure, over $11 million in the five year plan. The current contract provides about two-thirds of the Kettering teachers, each year, with a 6% “step” pay increase, and these “step” increases would continue if the contract was “frozen.”
The 4.82% increase, each year, called for in the last three years of the five year plan, evidently, is the anticipated amount required to negotiate a new teachers’ contract, and, it looks like Mr. Trent and the rest of the board feel a big need to acquiesce to the teachers’ union. It is interesting that Superintendent Schoenlein thought it more important to seek peace with the teacher’s union, rather than to follow his own judgment about how to increase Kettering test scores. He didn’t want KEA to be “disgruntled.” (See Kettering School Superintendent Acquiesces To Teacher’s Union Concerning 2011 Start Of School Date.)
In this time of economic recession, it is a tough sell to ask the public to voluntarily tax themselves so that teachers and administrators can have substantial pay increases. And so, advertisements for the 6.9 mill levy avoid the central issue of how 86% of this new revenue will be spent, and spokespersons, like Mr. Trent, warn, “without sufficient funds, cuts to program will need to be made.”
It would be refreshing if the board would publicly defend what, evidently, they believe: “Yes our teachers are the highest paid and we think it is in the public interest to keep increasing teacher salaries even higher.” I think there is a good argument in favor of such a point of view, and this pov could gain the support of a lot of Kettering voters. It’s an implicit issue in this campaign, why not make it explicit?
The request to Kettering voters to voluntarily raise property taxes to support Kettering Schools should be a good opportunity to have meaningful discussion about public education in Kettering. It should be an opportunity to begin talking about the long term future of public education in Kettering. What might happen is that, because this effort to sell this 6.9 mill tax increase seems so out of whack with the present economic reality, this 6.9 mill levy request might cause Kettering residents to wonder if their local system of public education in under local control, or whether it is under special interest control.
Written By Mike Bock
Here is a new feature — Leave a voice message. Call free from anywhere in the U.S.
