Originally posted 4/23:
At last night’s board meeting there was much discussion of the budget.
As I have discussed on many occasions, the original amount budgeted for Non-Public Schools for 07-08 was $4,000,000.
This number was a totally inappropriate amount.
In the prior year (06-07), we actually spent $6.7 million for this budget.
In the most basic approaches to accounting, one must look at the actual expenditures for the previous year to determine whether the amount budgeted for the current year is reasonable.
When asked how this severe under-budgeting happened, the Superintendent responded,
“I don’t know, the persons that were responsible for putting together the budget are no longer here.” (Click on the words to hear the audio.) Obviously the CFO has left, but the Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent for Student Services (who is responsible for the Non-Public School program) are still here, so shouldn’t there be some continuity?
When asked what role he takes in overseeing budget development the Superintendent responded:
“In the budget development it is up to the fiscal officer to prepare that, the fiscal officer reported to the board, the fiscal officer reported the budget to the board committee, the fiscal officer presented the board to the various labor leaders, my role was simply to talk with the Chief Financial Officer and ask if the figures were accurate and I was assured that they were. But I don’t have an actual role in budget development.” He then confirmed that he does not perform any number checking or analysis of the budget. (Click on the words to hear audio.)
How can this be? The Superintendent, the CEO, has no role in budget development? His role is to “simply talk with the Chief Financial Officer and ask if the figures were accurate.” Given this response, is it surprising that the budget has had so many problems? The Superintendent is responsible for the management of the district – he IS responsible for the budget, but he does not take any role other than to ask if it is right?
Since asking for the Superintendent’s resignation, I have had several parents suggest that now is not a good time to be without a superintendent due to the budget crisis. I guess this should alleviate any of those concerns – with no role in budget development, I don’t think his presence will be missed while we deal with these budget issues.
Finally, I should point out that the Superintendent claims to have first found out about this under-budgeting in October, 2007. However, Dr. Mildred Browne, Assistant Superintendent for Student Services (who is responsible for this budget), found out about the under-budgeting in July, 2007, three months earlier. What is wrong with a system that does not notify the Superintendent immediately a $2.7 million error in the budget?
We need a Superintendent who understands the appropriate roles and and responsibilities of the job.
UPDATE: The audio file of last night's meeting is now available.
Click here to listen. This was recorded on my digital voice recorder, which was sitting next to me on the podium. For future board meetings, I have been promised a clean audio feed from the amplification system. I am working on clips of the above for ease and will post those once I am done. The discussion of the budget starts about 1 1/2 hrs into the recording.
UPDATE #2: Click here for the audio file of the budget discussion alone. You can now also click on the words above to hear individual audio clips of the questions and statements that are highlighted.
86 comments:
speechless!
How is it that the superintendent has no control over the budget? Doesn't he know his own job? You should fire him for not doing his job.
As a share holder (parent) I motion that we remove the superintendent immediately. Unreal...
I think it's pretty obvious that no one has any control of the budget.
His answer wouldn't work in any other business...no excuse for it to work here.
Paul, Gary, I was listening last night and was chatting at the same time with Andre and emailing with the Mayor of Claycord. I WAS SPEECHLESS and shocked at what I was hearing. Does anyone have this as an audio file that can be posted? I was so mad KVHS isn't like TIVO and I could've rewound as I couldn't believe what I was hearing. He took no responsibility for budget development.. as you said, he said it plain and clear and poor Ms. Browne, admitting it was a known problem months before the Sup knew? Or did he know? Will we ever know? This is the sort of irresponsibility and "passing the buck" that got us here.. we need to fix it and did last night leave any doubt? I hope people will come on Saturday and ask these two other board members what they're going to do about it. And listening at home is tough as I dont' always know who's talking.. but why were you you the only one asking these hard questions? Were either of the three other board members involved in the exchange at all?
I have the audio and am working to post it - unfortunately it is only coming out of the left speaker, so you will have to accept my apology for the failure to properly record it. It is, however, very audible.
I was also listening in, but found it extremely difficult. In addition, whenever Gary Eberhart spoke it seems as if his sound died off - and he referenced that as well.
All I can say is...wow!
The sound dies off when I speak because the audio system that we are using is either broken or my microphone is adjusted so that the volume is low. I have made numerous requests that my microphone be adjusted or fixed. My microphone is the only microphone in the Board room that is not correctly adjusted. Maybe there is a conspiracy to make sure that my voice is silenced? Maybe we should call the conspiracy audiogate. I think my numerous requests to have the problem remedied have fallen on deaf ears, or maybe they just can't hear me when I have made the requests.
Another attribute of “audiogate” is that our district records the audio for each of our meetings. If you have ever had the misfortune to actually need to listen to the audio archive from one of our past meetings, you would know what I mean. After each Board meeting, the Board is provided a CD of the meeting audio and much of the audio is inaudible. I’m not sure why the district feels comfortable producing such poor quality audio recordings of our meetings, although after last night’s meeting, I guess I can see why the district wouldn’t want an accurate record. Fortunately, Paul spent about $150 of his own money and purchased a digital recorder and he is recording the open session meetings. Those pod casts will soon be available, starting with last night’s audio
And my last point on “audiogate” for now, despite the fact that we post in our agenda that our meetings are carried live on 90.5 FM-KVHS, the radio coverage stops at 10:00 PM regardless of whether or not the meeting is over. There are many people that listen on the radio and depend on that broadcast to be complete. There are also times when the meetings are not covered at all, despite the fact that we inform the public that they are. I have not done a legal analysis of this issue yet, but it may be a violation of the Brown Act to notify the public that the Board meeting will be available on the radio and then not make a diligent effort to ensure that it happens.
I have complained for a long time that these issues need to be remedied. It is important to our community that meeting audio and archives of the meetings are of high enough quality to be useful. This all relates to being accountable to the community. Maybe now that I have written something about it, something will actually get done. In the mean time, Paul and I will make every attempt to ensure that you all have an accurate record of what goes on at our meetings.
The audio of the entire meeting is now available at
http://votestrange.com/strangelaw/042208MDUSDBOARDMEETING.mp3
I am working to clip the discussion related to the budget and will post links to it when I am done. The discussion begins about 1 1/2 hours into the meeting. I will also be podcasting this so that folks can subscribe to it.
I am not sure about the bandwidth on the site where I posted this, so let's hope it holds up.
It starts right around the 1 hour 25 minute mark. FYI.
Paul or Gary, what would it take to get rid of Gary McHenry? Obviously just the two of you are against him, and it isn't working. It sure is getting the word out about him, but what else can we do to get this guy out of our district?
I would imagine that this is similar to conversations that Ken Lay had just prior to Enrons collapse. I'm ashamed to have my children attend schools in a district where the students take more responsibility for their actions than the administration. I find it to be a conflict of interest that I have entrusted this district to teach my children, but the superintendent has no qualms about shirking his own responsibilities. If you don't remove him, I will remove my children (all 5 of them) from your district.
Tankerjoe and concernedparent,
We are trying as hard as we can to make change. More pressure from the public, more speaking out, more letters to the editor and let the other board members know you can't stand it any longer.
Paul and/or Gary,
Are you also planning on attending the meeting with Dick Allen and April Treece, or is it just them? Just curious.
Thanks for all you do.
native claycordian,
The Brown Act (A California Open Meeting Act), prevents a majority of the board from being together and discussing district business, unless the proper the notice requirements have been met. As the meeting on Saturday will not be a noticed board meeting, we cannot legally be there - neither can Mrs. Mayo, so I wouldn't read her absence as anything other than compliance with the law.
Thanks for your support.
I'm just becoming aware of all that is going on in the district and it seems that how you feel colors what you hear. The company I work for has a budget dept and the budget is constructed similar to the district (as explained on the tape). The CEO doesnt' do it, the CFO does it. It also seems that Special ed costs for that private school stuff was declining due to enrollment and possibly through iep's some more students would be served at a school so you budget less. The person in charge of that budget is more to blame for projections. Budgets are anticipated revenue and expenditure. Every PFC member knows that budgets change throughout the year. McHenry just doesn't seem as incompetent as you seem to want us to believe. The majority of board members see a different side as did the newly appointed principal who spoke during the meeting. The other board members spoke as intelligent and passionate education people. It seems like a witch hunt. We should be mad at the state for not giving the district enough funds. Other districts seem to be rallying their unhappiness with state funding not ousting the messenger.
Anon 3:41:
A couple of points - I wonder whether your CEO would say that he/she has "no actual role in budget development." None?
I am surprised that you are defending the NPS school budget, even the Superintendent doesn't think it is right or that it was done right, so what makes you think it was right? There was a discussion about reducing these expenses on a going forward basis by bringing students back into the district, but that was related to the 50% reduction in the increase for NPS in the third and fourth years of the budget projections. Dr. Browne's explanation of the under-budgeting mentioned the increase in the number of students, but was more focused on the point that there might have been other money in Special Ed that might have been over-budgeted so they could use those dollars. I also think it is worth explaining that the amount budgeted for NPS was exactly $4,000,000.00 - it was an arbitrary reduction to the amount. The Superintendent said that he does not check the numbers or analyze the budget.
Do you really think that a newly appointed principal would chastise the Superintendent?
We are mad at the state for not giving us enough money. We are not, however, blaming the Superintendent for any of the cuts or budget problems related to the state budget. Where I have a problem is with the ongoing budget problems that are unrelated to the state budget, and this is one of them. In any event, how long would your CEO keep his/her job if there were these types of discrepancies in the budget (not to mention the other problems)?
This is not about ousting the messenger - I am as much a messenger of the bad news from the state as anyone else. This has been long coming and, if anything, the governor's budget has shielded the real budget problems the district has from view.
What about the other issues - employee morale, lack of planning, etc. Have you spoken to teachers out there?
Anon 3:41- Could it be that how you feel colors what you hear? CEO's might not develop the actual budget, but you can bet that they are ultimately responsible for it.
The person in charge of the budget was hired by Mr. McHenry. It is perfectly acceptable to delegate authority in business, but the person who is delegating still holds the responsibility to ensure the job is getting done right. Can you really imagine the head of a $300M operation, like MDUSD, blaming the CFO without any consequence?
You say the majority of the board members spoke as passionate education people and also cited that a newly appointed principal who spoke at the meeting in support of the Superintendent.
I listened to the budget discussion and only heard Linda Mayo (besides Paul and Gary) make a comment. She spoke to the volatility of Special Education funding and sounded more like she was defending the error instead of getting to the bottom of things.
As far as the newly appointed principal, well, how much credence do you think we should give someone who is new to the district and likely hired by the Superintendent?
What I heard during the discussion was Paul and Gary asking thoughtful questions as to why this item was under budgeted, and what would be done in the future to prevent this from happening again. I didn't hear anything that sounded like a witch hunt. It is the Board's job to ask those questions, not to go along for the sake of getting along.
I believe both Paul and Gary respect Mr. McHenry but feel that it is time for someone with a new vision and perspective to come in and take over. Eight years is a long time for anyone at the top.
If other districts aren't asking to oust the messenger, it is because their situation is not the same. This is about more than not getting enough funding from the state. It is about ongoing teacher negotiations, secrecy and multiple fiscal errors that undermine parents' confidence in the district.
At the end of the day, I just don't see how this is anything other than the Board's responsibility. McHenry's statements are breathtaking, but it is the Board's responsibility for oversight, direction, and hiring or firing. I'm tired of hearing about poor performance when the Board should a) take the heat; b) make change when necessary instead of playing out the scenario that gets played out (see Oakland) when a Superintendent's contract is coming up at the same time the union contract is.
worldviewpr,
I agree. This is the board's responsibility and Gary Eberhart and I are trying to provide oversight, direction and accountability. The problem is that the rest of the board does not see a problem. I would love to make a change and I believe it is necessary. Without a board majority, the simple fact is we are relegated to sharing the poor performance with the public to try to force change - that is what we are doing. I wish the rest of the board would join us, but so far, they won't. I hope you won't get too tired of hearing about poor performance before we get change.
Anon 3:41
Thank you! I have not listened to the meeting yet but spoke to someone today who did. I asked them if it was as bad as this blog makes it out to be and they said no.
I keep hearing about on going teacher negotiations. Has anyone quesioned the Union Leadership? I know teacher's who are not happy or confident with their Union Leadership and feel he has hurt them, not helped them. This person stated to a group of parents that he wants to see more programs cut so that he can get more money for the teachers. He does not even care if teacher's jobs are cut to do this. We don't want a Union Run District, our children would suffer. I for one would move to private school if that were to happen. Besides the MDEA Presidents child is in private school, De La Salle. Hmmmmm.
Wasn't there on going problems with this CFO not doing a good job? Wasn't there big payroll issues, and McHenry continued to do nothing? Didn't the county assign a review committee to the budget a few years back? Wouldn't those be signs to McHenry that he ought to check the budget numbers?? And why wasn't this person let go a long time ago when problems first came out? Also, it is unfair to blame the board for this. You can blame three of the board members who right now, are standing by and doing nothing.
Agreeing with comments like I just read on here...it isn't as bad as it sounds. Come on people! Two board members cannot make changes on their own. Their hands are tied.
It's easy for McHenry to point the finger at someone who is no longer there - Gloria Gamblin. Isn't he the one who hired her, even after the financial mess left behind in her last job? Pass the BuckHenry should be his new name....
momx3,
I'm glad we can give you the opportunity to hear the meeting. You would not have that opportunity otherwise (unless you ordered a copy - it would not be on the web). I think you will need to listen for yourself. I specifically quoted the Superintendent and provided links that back up his statements. I would say that is pretty full disclosure.
It looks like the someone is embarking on a misinformation campaign to try to make it look like this is two board members who are too committed to the unions just doing what they want. I recommend you spend a little time getting to know the issues and I doubt you will come to that conclusion. My bottom line is that I call it as I see it. You might want to review my post at: http://mdusd.blogspot.com/2008/04/ending-fund-balances-and-reality.html
It discusses the realities of our ending fund balance and responds to claims that we currently have plenty of money in our ending fund balance to fund employee raises now - if it wasn't for this blog, no one would be responding to those assertions. Feel free to call me - my number is on the blog.
While there is definitely an issue regarding the budget, Dr. Nicoll seems to be getting things under control and is working to correct many of the issues Paul and Gary have brought up. I believe he is trying to answer their questions to the best of his ability.
We need to move forward with or without a new superintendent. Despite the budget issues, which are definitely a concern, there are so many great people working in this district and a huge amount of services out there to help all of our children. The special education department had the financial discrepancy and it should be addressed. On the positive side, we should look at and acknowledge everything our special ed department and everyone involved in the school sites does for our children every single day. Most of the general public has no idea the amount of time, energy, and services expended by the employees in MDUSD to help all of our children.
The majority of our teachers are not wrapped up in the negativity. They show up for work and give everything they have for the students. As for employee morale, it would not be so low if the union leaders and now board members would stop telling people how miserable they are or they should be.
This is an old write up, I thought I would share.
I googled some past employees- try it yourself.
" I Live or die by the Budget"
New Year, New CFO for California School District
Posted on: Monday, 18 July 2005, 18:01 CDT
Jul. 17--The Mt. Diablo School District steamed into a new fiscal year with a crew of state auditors and a new financial captain, its fifth in a year, aboard.
New chief financial officer Gloria Gamblin reports directly to Superintendent Gary McHenry, not 30-year district veteran Richard Nicoll, the assistant superintendent who supervised previous fiscal directors. McHenry said he wanted increased control of the budget.
"I literally live or die by the budget," said McHenry.
Gamblin, who will earn $131,050 a year, brings two decades of fiscal experience in the Martinez, Pittsburg and Oakland school districts. She earned her bachelor's degree in business management from Holy Names College three years ago.
Gamblin has already plunged headlong into the district's books. Her budget documents are dotted with notes and the district's 2003-04 audit fairly bristles with yellow sticky notes -- questions for the district's independent auditors.
The plunge, the questioning and the demand for documentation are no surprise. Mt. Diablo's new CFO prides herself on her forthright approach, and she's no stranger to bad news or controversy.
"If I've got bad news to tell you, I'll tell you," she said. "I'm upfront."
Gamblin joined the Oakland school district as its chief financial officer just weeks before that district went suddenly and shockingly bankrupt in 2002. It was a learning experience, she said wryly, but she was able to do some restructuring.
Oakland has made some progress since then, but its financial future is shaky. State auditors could not verify Oakland's financial situation at the end of 2002-03 because detailed accounting records had not been maintained. The 2003-04 books closed late and the audit was delayed. Massive problems remain.
Some -- a dysfunctional information management system, payroll problems and lack of internal controls between personnel and payroll -- are echoed in Mt. Diablo's district office.
"I do believe (Mt. Diablo) will be challenging," she said. "But there are a lot of good people here who want to do the right thing."
Gamblin's resume also includes 10 years in the Martinez school district and eight in Pittsburg, where she was responsible for the district's controversial 2002-03 budget. The $62 million spending plan was rejected by the Contra Costa County Office of Education after Gamblin left for Oakland.
County officials had cited concerns that Pittsburg's beginning balance was inflated by $100,000; no money was allocated to open a new elementary school; and special education programs, which were already under federal scrutiny for insufficient services, had been cut by $700,000.
Gamblin was stunned to hear about the 2002 budget and said that no one at the county or district had called her with questions.
-----
Anonymous 9:16. WOW. So McHenry wanted the CFO to report to him for increased control of the budget... ? Now he says he has no actual role in actual budget development?
8:55 if you've read this site or heard Gary or Paul speak you will see that they point out the many good things going on in this district. They just feel like many of us that the district could be even better with a different leader. It's going to be very hard for this district to get a parcel tax with McHenry in charge, and very hard for the district to move forward.
To ANON 8:55
"As for employee morale, it would not be so low if the union leaders and now board members would stop telling people how miserable they are or they should be."
It is not my union or these two board members telling me my morale is low. I have come to that conclusion all by myself, and I certainly don't need you putting rose-colored glasses on me in an effort to make it appear as if all is truly well in MDUSD. The benefits situation must be resolved first and foremost.
We've heard a lot about the almost $4 million nonpublic schools underbudget problem for 2007-2008. I want to know how management handled last year's (2006-2007) $2.7 million underbudget problem for the same expense or account.
Did management bring the adjustment forward in the Interim Reports filed in December and March last year? Or, did management hide the adjustment by pulling in money from other special education or general education accounts?
If management had handled the budget error correctly last year, they shouldn't have made the same mistake this year (at least the third year in a row that management has materially underbudgeted this expense).
If management somehow hid the $2.7 million adjustment last year, we're looking at another one of those coverup problems that have come to symbolize this District. And, if management hid the problem last year (and the year before) that might explain why management made the same mistake three years in a row.
Everybody makes mistakes and hopefully learns from them. Why has our District made the same mistake for the past three years and still not got it right?
"It looks like the someone is embarking on a misinformation campaign to try to make it look like this is two board members who are too committed to the unions just doing what they want."
I did not say that and did not imply what you said in your above comment. I just want people to also look at the Union Representation.
The reason people won't speak up is that they don't want the confrontation, myself included. Plus it seems that in these blogs people misread posts all the time. I will continue to listen, learn, read and ask questions respecfully.
Actually you just lost another person by your statement.
Momx3.. with all due respect, really.. you can't be so sensitive. This stuff is important. It may be contentious at times. You can't sit back and not want conflict when the status quo is getting us deeper and deeper into trouble at this district. I couldn't tell from your first message whether you actually ever bothered to listen to the board meeting? Or if YOU actually heard from any teachers or heard the union rep or heard the teacher talk about other teachers losing jobs.. are you just repeating what you're hearing people say? You can't jump into this and get hurt feelings.. if you want to jump in, jump in - no matter what "side" you're on you need to know the facts ,you need to talk to the people involved directly, not thru hear-say. The fact that you're here means you're a parent interested in the welfare of this district. I urge you to listen to the board meeting , talk to your kids teachers.. and see if what you "heard" is the party line with all teachers. I think you'll find no. But find out for yourself.
momx3,
I'm afraid you just did what you mentioned - "it seems that in these blogs people misread posts all the time." I was not accusing you of being on any campaign, I am just hearing these types of suggestions more often and it seems that someone (not you) is beginning to start this conversation. As far as me having "lost another person," this is not a competition for "people." It is about doing the right thing and providing information to the public. If the public then looks at the information we provide (which I assure you is accurate) and decides that they are happy with the status quo, then so be it.
I will continue to tell you what I think and operate in the most open and honest manner possible - in my opinion, you won't find the same level of candor from the district or the majority of the board.
Yes, the district has problems with the Superintendent, but so does the teachers union. I do not work for the district, but have many friends who are teachers who have no love for Mike Noce, but are afraid of speaking out. This did not come from a conversation with one teacher, it's been with four teachers. If four of my friends feel this way, what about the rest of the rank and file? Yes, McHenry should resign, but so should Noce, so we can begin to move forward.
MIKE SPEAKS FOR ME!
Not One Of Your 4 Teachers Asked
...and I also applaud these two board members efforts.
I'd add that Mike speaks UP for me.
MDEA does not speak for me...
MDEA does not speak for me either.
Anon 5:02- I'm not sure what you mean by "Not One Of Your 4 Teachers Asked". Do you mean asked for his resignation?
That is the point that I am making-- they feel intimidated, so they wouldn't ask. According to my friends, there is growing resentment in the ranks...
"Not One Of Your 4 Teachers Asked" meant that you asked 4 teachers, but no ME. I am NOT complaining about Mike Noce. He doesn't intimidate me, nor do I want him to step aside. Teachers overwhelmingly asked for salary and benefits to be addressed in this contract negotiations process. He is following our expectation. You go back and ask those 4 teachers if they are paying $14,000 a year for benefits out of their pocket and I'll bet the answer isn't yes. If it is, ask them what McHenry is doing to make it better for them. If they say we should have settled earlier, ask them why they think they are worth so little? If they are still so unhappy with Mike as president, why aren't they running as the presidential candidates for the upcoming MDEA election? Mike is running unchallenged by any of those 4 teachers with whom you spoke. They are prepared to complain yet won't step up to do the apparently thankless job of running their association.
Mike Speaks For Me!
I know of these "4 Teachers". Not your 4 friends personally, but that type of "4 Teachers". Every school site has them... even more actually. They complain and rarely, if ever, show up at site meetings for MDEA so they may give valuable input to their association. I know this isn't unique to our district.
The earlier poster needs to get around and ask more than 4 teachers. We have nearly 2000 teachers and we aren't all happy in MDUSD!
Thanks Mike Moce and our Negotiations Team! Keep up the good work!
I love it! How about as your child's teacher I claim I have no role in your child's education? When a student bring up his or her essay or test, I just ASK if it is accurate and then call it good, A+! I guess the community would like me to follow that example, huh? If it turns out it is not accurate, I'll just blame the child? What a responsibility and accountability role model.
Were the board members, district council members, members of the audience in the board room, and community members listening on the radio informed that you were recording the meeting on your personal device? If not--and there was nothing said aloud during the board meeting--you may be in violation of the Brown Act.....and now you are publishing that violation for all to see/hear.
Be more aware of what you, as elected board member, are doing. Your integrity is questionable. Your judgment is almost non-existant. Oh, wait.....you don't have either of those qualities.
Are you serious? It was broadcast LIVE On the internet for the world to hear. Its recorded by the district, its a public forum and a publicly noticed meeting. You've got to be kidding me. Please provide your reference to this subject in the Brown Act documentation.
I just found the brown act and it took me two seconds:
A host of provisions combine to provide public access to the meetings of legislative bodies. For
example, the times and dates of all meetings must be noticed and an agenda must be prepared
providing a brief general description of all matters to be discussed or considered at the meeting. (§§
54954, 54954.2.) As a precondition to attending the meeting, members of the public may not be asked
to provide their names. (§ 54953.3.) While in attendance, members of the public may make video or
audio recordings of the meeting. (§ 54953.5.) As a general rule, information given to a majority of the
members of the legislative body in connection with an open meeting must be equally available to
members of the public. (§ 54957.5.) Before or during consideration of each agenda item, the public
must be given an opportunity to comment on the item. (§ 54954.3(a).)
I too just looked at the Brown Act, easy to find and search and interestingly I also found the following ....
"Other Public Meetings
When a majority of a legislative body attends an open and publicized meeting held by
a person or organization, other than the local agency on a matter of local interest, the
legislative body is not deemed to be conducting a meeting, so long as the members in
attendance do not discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled
program, issues of a specific nature related to the subject matter jurisdiction of the
body. (§ 54952.2(c)(3).) This exception applies to attendance at a meeting conducted
by a private individual, or private organization, so long as the meeting concerns issues
of local interest and is open to the public and well publicized in advance."
So while I can't pretend I researched this any further than finding this reference, it seems that a majority could attend one of these community meetings, doesn't it?
9:24 How hypocrital can you be? The only persons integrity and judgment that comes to mind is that of McHenry and you for posting such a ridiculous judgmental statement in which you know NOTHING about!
Anon 9:24,
Thank you for your concern about people being recorded without knowing. For the record, the district also records these meetings and the recordings are available to the public, the quality is just very low (although due to me pushing the issue, they will be clearer in the near future). The district has indicated it will provide a clean feed to me in the near future.
In addition, our public agenda, with is posted to notice the meeting states that all regular meetings of the board will be recorded. This was a public meeting broadcast on the radio and internet and open to the public.
Finally, California law specifically prohibits the district from preventing any member of the public (which includes me) from recording any board meeting.
Obviously this is not an issue. Anonymous attacks usually are - anon - feel free to call me, my number is on the blog. You might just find out that I do have integrity.
Anon 7:09- I didn't ask 4 teachers. I know four teachers who are friends and have talked at length with them about how they feel about the way the contract negotiations are going.
I wondered why it was so hard for them to state their case to the union, but after reading your posts, I think I understand now.
I read your post looking for some way in to the heart and mind of MDEA, but what I found sounded angry and accusing, along the lines of "if you aren't with us, then you are against us. If I was a teacher who disagreed with MDEA, I can just imagine how my standing up at a meeting and making those suggestions would go over.
You marginalize anyone who disagrees by saying that they are complainers who probably don't have to pay for their own benefits. Why would one of these "complainers" want to address the MDEA leadership when they probably be dismissed right off the bat. You have no idea of their reasons for wanting to settle for less, but the manner in which you open yourself up for dissent is certainly not inviting.
These teachers are not happy with the district, but some are single parents and cannot afford to go on strike--should it be called for. They see the world around them and know that people in every industry are losing jobs and homes right now. They give a lot to teach our children and want benefits and higher pay, just like MDEA does, but they don't like your tactics.
It is easy to dismiss people who disagree with you because then you don't have to confront the reality. There are more and more teachers who are unsatisfied with the way negotiations are being conducted.
I completely understand that no one has stepped up to run for President of MDEA. It's like running for the board. It's a tough job with little thanks. I don't think that means that those who are in the top position are elevated to a status where they cannot be questioned.
Parents are losing faith with the Superintendent, but they are equally losing faith in MDEA.
I had a great day today, I spent some time at the school... talked to a couple of teachers. And I just asked, what do you think of the contract issues? what do you think of the budget issues? what do you think of the board? what do you think of mchenry? good stuff.. I say people, don't be afraid to just ask the teachers you deal with every day. Whether they agree with Noce or not, there is common ground and issues that have to be addressed. I worry that there are many, many parents out there that won't realize anything is wrong until they pull into their schools for the day and their teachers are out on strike.
I'll be one of them...on strike that is if I need to be.
Fed Up!
Go, Gary! Go, Paul. People are talking AND thinking!
Randy
The Pod cast is great!
I can really hear all that was said, for the FIRST TIME!
Can I burn the pod cast to a disc to give away?
The Brown Act issue has now DIED, POD CAST AWAY!
Happy parent.
I have a question???
As I read the Public Notification in the C.C Times today, I see 3 for bid notices for MDUSD:(
1.Classroom security hardware.
Est.$735,000.00
2.Landscape improvements.
est.$1,788,000.00
3.Paving improvements.
No estimate.
I know it is probably measure C funds (right?) but it just feels like there is more money than cents.
(Or did someone already use that line)?
I know most folks do not have time to read the public notice. But I worked to help save the Old Pleasant Hill High School years ago, (now PHMS)
It pays to read and be a informed member of the community- I am a MDUSD graduate, who does most things right. Not because I survived school. But because my parents taught me.
McDEA does not speak for me!
I hate teachers unions.
Well isn't that too bad!
I also hate supporters of teachers unions. You will destroy education in this state.
Unions can be good and bad. Right now what MDEA representation has done and is doing makes them look bad. This is not a reflection on the districts wonderful teacher's, just poor leadership with terrible tactics.
As a student, I can't see how an adult can be so childish as to just come out and say "I hate teachers unions". Unions protect the teachers from the district and the administrators, and prevent good teachers from being fired so that they [the district] can hire young teachers on lower salaries, and much, much more. As previously stated, it is poor leadership and tactics that are causing the union too look bad, but they really do have their hearts in the right place. If the union regroups and cleans it's act up, there's no reason that everyone can't have most of their needs met.
Tactics? Exactly what are these horrible union tactics that are being used to achieve the membership directive? Be specific please.
Improving the benefits and compensation situation is the directive of the majority of the MDEA members. Please offer some tactics advice so this directive can be achieved once and for all. No one would like to get a decent contract settled more than the teachers! Again, be specific.
H. Pence
Wow! I'd thought I'd have been put in my place by now. But really...I'd like to know how this can be settled without ill will and a strike.
H. Pence
One is claiming the district has plenty of money when it doesn't. MDEA recently said there was lots of money and the there was a discussion on this site about how that money must be used over the next few years so it is really not available.
Is there ANY chance that elementary schools will get to keep their Vice Principals? I know cuts have to be made but every school needs a VP, especially schools w/a lot of discipline issues. To base the formula strictly on a population of 700 does not make sense. All board members and anyone supporting this cut, should seriously spend some time at some of our schools.
Can no one support the poor tactics claim against MDEA? Facts would be helpful when trying to draw accurate conclusions on these issues.
Anonymous 2:49, what are you looking for?
One tactic was the picketing of district job fairs. Parents told the MDEA President they were not supportive of this because it hurt their children and to please stop. Then to hear this person bring up the lack of teacher's...
Also, all information and facts are not given to MDEA's general membership, such as telling teachers there is $9.3 million in available funds. This was brought up by a teacher who then found out through Mr. Strange that this money is not available because the budget is for 3 years and by year 3the district is in a deficit. This is not right only to give partial information, the MDEA membership is depending on their leader to provide all facts.
Another issue was to hear a teacher state they heard that the general membership did not accept a district offer last March, this teacher said that there was no vote and as a general member was not given the opportunity to decide.
Also, MDEA rejected an off-the schedule, no strings attached, increase for this year's summer school teachers WITHOUT talking to the teachers.
Whether a teacher, a parent, or other member of our community, we all need honest and accurate information in order to make informed decisions.
Anonymous has posted legitimate concerns. It might make sense to have a MDEA spot on the blog so teachers and MDEA can open a dialogue and everyone can read about the issues and the responses.
I think part of the problem is that District management has misinformed MDEA just as management has misinformed the Board and the Public. If MDEA believed the District had $9 million in available fund balances, that may have been the case (to the best of MDEA's knowledge) when MDEA shared that information with teachers.
Let's face it. Everybody (including the Board) thought we had at least $4 million more funds to work with when the original 2007-2008 budget was adopted last summer. It was only after management filed two Interim Reports (one in December and the other in March) that we learned management had underbudgeted non-public schools expenses by $4 million. This is the third consecutive year that management grossly understimated this amount.
Dr. Browne acknowledged she knew about this year's problem (and I'm still wondering about the last two years' problems) several months before management apprised the Board of the situation. Apparently, Dr. Browne thought she could "solve" the problem by finding extra money in other accounts.
This is no way to manage a budget and no way to manage a District. We cannont tolerate more of these "hiding the ball" tactics that have plagued our District for many years now.
We have two Board members (Gary and Paul) who insist on knowing the truth and sharing that information with the Public. We have three Board members who apparently don't have a problem remaining uninformed or misinformed.
Everyone - teachers, parents and other members of our community, must insist on the truth. Write your Board members and advise them that we will not tolerate anything less.
We require honesty and integrity at the highest levels of our District organization. We require a Superintendent who is responsible and accountable, who knows what's going on with the budget, and who's willing to share the truth about the budget with the Board and the Public.
I have a couple of budget questions for Paul or Gary (or anyone else who might know the answer).
When our Special Education Department requires additional funds for speech pathologist contracts, non-public schools, etc., we often see 100% of the increase in expenditures coming out of the General Fund.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) started out as a government funding law. The U.S. Government was originally supposed to contribute 20% of the costs and the contribution was supposed to grow to 40% over time.
I know Congress never fulfilled its promise or commitment to fund special education at the 40% level and we never made it beyond the 18 to 20% mark.
My question is whether our District can look to the federal government to pick up 18 to 20% of the $4 million additional non-public school expenses this year. If so, why do we have to take the bulk of these expenditures from the general fund?
I also believe specific additional funding for residential placements in non-public schools might have been available from the State at some point during the past two to three years.
Did management take advantage of the additional funding options when the money was available? Are we looking to all available sources of revenue to cover these expenditures?
Dorothy,
The answer is that we cannot look to the federal govt to cover these costs. The fed does not provide us 18% of whatever our costs are, rather they provide a fixed amount, that in the final analysis equals about 18% of special ed costs (not for us, but on average across the country). These expenditures are not specifically general fund, they are special ed fund costs. The agenda item reflects general fund is that due to the shortage of funding in special ed, we make a general fund transfer to support special ed. Because this is an additional expense and the special ed budget is not sufficient (even with the previous transfers), the impact is to the general fund.
I do not know whether management has pursued the exact dollars you are referencing regarding residential placements. There would be no way for me to find out unless you have a specific program in mind (not because they won't tell me, but because we won't know whether or not we have covered that base).
These questions are for all of the Board members. What is your role in the budget process? Doesn't the Board share responsibility for the errors? Or did you not check the numbers against previous year? I attempt to understand the budget, but I do not keep last year's for comparison. I realize many adjustments are made throughout the year, but the budget from the previous year would be a place to start. I have noticed lately that there have been budget updates within the agenda packet, and I have found that very useful. Was the handling of the additional special ed transportation bill (the one that arrived after the books were closed for the year), proper? If not, why has that been allowed to slide? What is the procedure prior to closing the books for the year to assure that all outstanding bills have been received and paid? Here at home I would certainly notice if I had not received and paid my mortgage for the month. What kinds of checks and balances are in place to prevent this, and were they followed? I find the budget as presented in the agenda information packet hard to understand. Would you have any tips that would help me understand it? It is difficult to hold my representatives responsible when I do not know what you are prioritizing, what you are underfunding, and how the District is funded and what options there are to improve that. Thank-you for your assistance and answers.
S. Walters
S. Walters,
I have answered your questions here:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgj2k88n_12z257xcf
Let me know if you have any problems with the link.
Paul
Thank-you Paul, that was helpful. Why do you vote to approve the budgets when you do not get all the information you need? Seems to me an attorney would know better. Of course that does not excuse any one else on the board who votes to approve the budget without being fully informed. Thanks again for the information.
S. Walters
I notice that all board members were given the opportunity from June 19, 2007 to June 25 to review the proposed budget for 2007-2008 before they voted on approving it on June 26. If there were concerns about needed or incomplete information, why were these concerns not stated on June 26, 2007 when the budget was put before the board for approval? There are comments from two board members stating that they had questions and had received satisfactory response from the CFO. I don't see anyone stating that they still had questions or concerns. The vote was 5-0 in favor of approval. I am sure there must be a logical reason for the lack of comment at that meeting, as well as the unanimous vote to approve. But either way, since everyone on the board approved the budget, shouldn't all board members, as well as Mr. McHenry, take resposibility for it. Does this mean we should ask for the resignation of the entire board as well as McHenry's?
I am happy to take responsibility for not asking for the Superintendent's resignation earlier. I do think, however, that it was appropriate for me to try to work within the system before going directly to the public. I don't think any of you would expect anything different. I felt that it was necessary for me to make my own assessment, rather than rely on others. In retrospect, I probably could have acted sooner, but my call for his resignation would not have the same legitimacy if I had not done the work myself.
The real problem in June was with the level of information being provided. As a result, we could not see the errors and it was not apparent that there were significant problems with the budget. Even the person in charge of the NPS budget (Mildred Browne) did not realize there was a problem until July.
It seems a little odd to now say that you want to hold the two board members who have even made this an issue responsible, but OK. I am trying to make the district better, trying to get leadership that our community can trust, trying to get the board to do something other than blindly follow the superintendent - I hope you will join me.
AlsoConcerned, do you work for the district?
No, I don't work for the district.
I find it odd that if a board member voted to approve a budget that they would find it odd that I would want to also hold them responsible for it. Just say, "Yes, I didn't have all the info that I should have had and I still voted to approve it." Now, if you didn't know that you didn't have all the info, then that would be an even bigger concern of mine.
I am not a McHenry fan, but I am sure he also feels he is trying to make the district better.
As far as getting leadership that we can trust; are we supposed to trust the Board's leadership when they appear to be voting to approve things even though they know they don't have all the information? If the vote on June 27 had been a 4-1, 3-2 or 2-3 vote with a statement from the dissenters that lack of info is the reason for a no vote, then maybe I would feel a bit more trust for those people. Otherwise, it appears to be just a rubber stamp approach to budget approval on that date.
I am not singling out the two people that are bringing it up now. I am expecting a claim of resposibility from ALL of those that gave their approval to the flawed budget.
Can't one of you 6 (includung McHenry) stand up and say, "Yes, I am responsible. I made a mistake, and I will do better."
Correction to my post. "If the vote on June 27..." Vote was on June 26.
AlsoConcerned,
I am responsible for what I can control. I have not gotten sufficient budget information. I tried to work through that internally before taking it to the community. I think it was fair to give the Superintendent an opportunity to work with me to get that fixed. What would you have done? Would you have rejected the budget and put the district in the position of facing consequences and potential takeover from the County Office? Or would you try to fix the problem internally? (Particularly, when I did not have any concrete basis for knowing that there were errors.)
I certainly make mistakes and if you think one of them was not going public earlier, then that is fine. Again, the problem I faced was not that I had reason to believe that the budget was wrong, but that I could not get information. You also have to understand that the rest of the board (with the exception of Gary) was completely fine with the level of detail we were provided. That level of detail is essentially just the budget document you can download from our website.
Recently, after having called for the Superintendent's resignation and the resignation of our CFO, I have been able to get much more budget information. I have seen an exception report showing year-over-year expenditures. I have been given a line-by-line budget that shows multiple years.
I think I am doing what needs to be done to improve the process. Making change takes time and when you can't do it from inside, you have no option but to create pressure from the outside. If you think I am not doing my job, then don't support me. I will just continue to do the best I can and provide the best information I can to the public. That way the public can make an informed decision.
What you have control over is your vote. What I am hearing you say is that you voted to approve the budget even though you knew you didn't have sufficient information to make that vote. Your no vote or abstaintion would not have stopped the budget from being passed. If it HAD stopped the passing of the budget, how fast do you think you would have received the info you needed? You seem to imply that McHenry's office had it the entire time.
What I would have done, and I have done, is say, "I can't vote on that because I don't have the info I need." I have done it on a jury and in business. It has put me under the gun at times, but at least I can say I did what I should have done. I understand that this approach is easier to do when you aren't trying to win a popularity contest every few years.
It worries me when our elected officials are doing what is expedient or easy just so they don't have to make that tough vote. Working to fix a problem after you have knowingly voted yes on the problem seems to be why we end up in these types of issues to begin with. How many times have there been budgeting errors like this in the past few years?
How do you think it would go over with share-holders of a company if the board of directors approved a flawed budget that they knew they didn't have all the info to make a decision on and had done so in previous years? Then how do you think it would go over with the share-holders if some of the board was to go to the share-holders and say "Oh my, do you see what the others did again? Yes I knew I didn't have all the info I needed to make this decision, and yes, I voted to approve it, but since I am telling you about what they did, I shouldn't be held responsible. You should definitely fire the CEO and CFO though. Can you beleive that the CEO is saying he's not responsible?"
I have full faith that you believe that you have and are doing the best that you can. However, if you throw someone under the bus, lay down there with them when you also share responsibility.
I think the point is the information that was given to board members "appeared" to be what they needed to make a decision. Isn't the board supposed to hire the superintendent to oversee the district and report to them? If the superintendent is censoring the information given to board members and they were not aware of that, then how can you hold them accountable. When they recognized that they needed more information they asked for it and were not given what they needed. Isn't that when they called for his resignation? They did the right thing. There is no excuse for the Superintendent to say he doesn't take a role in budget development. That's his main job! Especially when he's bringing budget cuts forward. He should know what is going on himself. It's his job to report that information to the board. The board needs to be able to count on the Superintendent to give them reliable and factual information and from my understanding when Paul and Gary found out they were not being given reliable information they stood up and did something about it. In other words, they decided not to let the bus run over them!
AlsoConcerned, you are so bold as you comment behind anonymity. I had the same information that was given to board members for years before I was on the board. I requested additional information and was denied access.
There are, however, reasonable assumptions that I should be able to make in relying on the staff. I should be able to assume that I don't need to do a year over year on each account, because a very basic level of competence would require that to be done by staff. I should be able to assume that no person in their right mind would intentionally underbudget an account by $2.7 million. I had no way of knowing that. I should be able to rely on professionals to do the most basic of jobs. In addition, I should be able to rely on the CEO having some oversight to ensure that such basic items are taken care of. When it became clear that there were fundamental problems, I took action.
It is easy for you to say that you would have this or would have that, but you can't really know.
I couldn't care less about the "popularity contest." This is about fixing the district, not keeping my position - if I wanted to keep this position, the easiest thing to do would to be to join the majority, claim everything is fine and run as a slate. We would be unbeatable and we are going to have a tough time removing April, but we have to try.
I have made the tough choice. I am standing up for the students of our district. You obviously have not been paying much attention. You are commenting on my blog, a blog that is designed to inform the public. It is rare that elected officials are as up front and open as Gary and I are. Can't you see that?
Worry all you want. If you want things to get better, join those of us who are willing to make tough choices and get something done.
Enough of your ranting. If you have anything else to say, call me. My number is on the right side of the blog. We'll see if you really want a better district.
Post a Comment