Woe is Alameda
Sigh, WordPress has been having issues, and I couldn’t figure out how to login to my account without going through the main wordpress page, but finally figured it out.
Somehow I can’t bring myself to care about the City of Alameda’s possible budget woes the way that I care about the School Districts. Maybe it’s because there are certain things in the City that can go unattended for a while if budget cuts need to happen, like the tree master plan and removing a replanting trees. That to me is pretty secondary to educating our kids. If the grass doesn’t get cut at some of the parks every week and instead gets cut every two weeks, I’m fine with that as well.
But for those of you that are concerned with the possible shortfall in the City’s budget, from the Alameda Journal:
A selective hiring freeze, a dip into reserves and a postponement of some capital projects are among the strategies Alameda has begun to implement in response to a projected $4 million city budget deficit.
Forecast as a $1.5 million budget deficit in December, it’s grown to $4 million, in large part because of a downturn in the nation’s economy and subsequent reduction in the city’s property transfer tax revenues.
…
“We’re assuming revenues will continue to decline because the economy and housing market are continuing to decline,” assistant city manager David Brandt said. “We may not be able to set next year’s budget to avoid service cuts. It may not be possible.”…
On a positive note however, there were slight gains in the collection of sales tax revenue for food sales and general retail (including the new Alameda Towne Centre stores), but a decline in every other category, most notable Transportation, which really just means all the car dealerships. This category will probably continue to decline once Superior (formerly Goode) Toyota goes away. For those that need it in graphical representation, check out SDR.
And while some are rejoicing the downturn in the housing market, the slow down in sales will probably affect the amount of money that goes into the City coffers. According the Journal article the largest decline in tax revenue came from property transfer taxes.
Overall, it’s not an ideal place for the City to be, but I think it can weather the storm.
I assume most of you received a letter from Ardella Dailey proposing an emergency parcel tax to help fund the schools. I would support a change to the parcel tax if no one was exempt from having to pay it. That change in and of itself would increase the amount of revenue. I always felt that exempting some citizens from paying the parcel tax was unfair and based primarily on political considerations (i.e., that the people who are exempt would vote for it). I never bought into the notion that somehow homeowners have more ability to pay, so if some people are exempt then we’re no longer talking about funding the schools, we’re talking about redistributing wealth.
Comment by Mike Rich — February 19, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
I think the parcel tax passed by a very slim margin, less than 1%. I think this time there may be less support - not only would it be the 3rd time, but if the State was bound by its own laws, we would not be considering the new or increased tax. If enough districts pass new taxes the State will not feel as obligated to meet the requirment of Prop 98. Perhaps fewer prisons would be needed if we support education. There would certainly be enough money for schools if the State did not have such easily abusable “Redevelopment Laws”.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 19, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
Here we go again … handout time!
AUSD does not deserve any extra penny. It was pretty repugnant how they got the parcel tax passed last time by exempting the seniors … but that wont fly this time (considering the slim margin of victory the last time). Perhaps if they hadn’t been so short sighted the last time, we would’ve had some extra $ (as Mike Rich points out).
Comment by Phil S — February 19, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Just say “no”. We all know that the problem with Government these days is too much spending. Taxation is not the answer. No matter how much it hurts to vote no and deny the schools more of our money, if we don’t say no, the politicians won’t get the message.
Comment by robert — February 20, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Ahead are many weeks and months of discussion about the merits of extending and/or expanding the Alameda school parcel tax. If the school board does decide in the next few weeks to put this matter on the ballot June 3, many of us will be doing our best to convince more than two-thirds of those who will vote to vote yes. So I’m sure there’s much more debate to come on all of this.
In the discussion of Prop 13 (most recently in the “Schools Again” thread), I don’t think anyone has brought up Prop 13’s anti-democratic 2/3 supermajority vote requirement for certain local property taxes (including parcel taxes). In addition to all its other shortcomings (and its benefits), Prop 13 allow a minority of 1/3 of the voters to block the will of a large majority so that even a parcel tax getting twice as many “yes” as “no” votes would fail by one vote. In addition to being unfair, this “over 2/3” voting requirement makes it extremely unlikely that we’ll see the coming wave of parcel taxes David Kirwin speculates about in comment #2. Very few school districts even try for voter approval of parcel taxes and many of those who do try fail, in large part because of the “over 2/3” voting requirement. As a result, the argument that we shouldn’t pass the parcel tax because doing so would give Sacramento an excuse not to reform or adequately fund schools may sound logical in the abstract, but it isn’t persuasive in the real context in which all of this is taking place.
Given Phil D’s use of “handout” and “repugnant” in comment #3 and robert’s blanket statement that “We all know that the problem with Government these days is too much spending” in comment #4, I think it is safe to assume that those two gentlemen don’t fall in to the “persuadable voter” category.
Though I’m tempted, I don’t want to sink to the level of cheap name calling in response to those comments, so I’ll just ask if “repugnant” is really the right word for people “putting their hands out” for children. Some of us who have studied and understand the specifics of the AUSD budget and the unfair (and admittedly complex) ways in which California underfunds AUSD might find ask what the “extra” Phil D is referring in #3’s “AUSD does not deserve any extra penny.” Extra? If you have really studied the specifics of this issue and really believe that, I’ll take you at your word.
In terms of #4, I’ll just say that we don’t all believe that and we certainly don’t all know it. Also, the capitalization of “Government” and the undifferentiated generalization about “the politicians” seems to suggest that Robert is setting forth a theory that applies universally to all federal, state and local governments and officials. The smart and generous souls who volunteer hundreds of hours to serve on our school board for essentially no compensation are quite different “political animals” than the folks in Sacramento and Washington. What specific message is the school board supposed to get?
Finally, in response to Mr. Rich’s critique of the parcel tax in comment #1, I think honest supporters of the parcel tax have to acknowledge that parcel taxes in general are imperfect and flawed. On the other hand, parcel taxes are the only method Prop 13 allows for local school districts that need to raise revenues. Moreover, to dismiss the parcel tax on the grounds that it redistributes wealth would seem to require dismissing virtually every tax ever enacted, since all taxes have redistributive qualities. Furthermore, if the key criterion for approving any proposed law is whether the law was written without regard to political calculation and the unpleasant compromises necessary to get it enacted, I don’t think we are going to be able to have any more laws or public policies. The Alameda school parcel tax is unpleasant and imperfect, but we need it and in the context in which we find ourselves in 2008, extending or expanding it would be good public policy. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — February 20, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
Nice post Rob - I really agree with you; AUSD has the need; AUSD is not getting its “Fair Share”. As times and economics change, so too must the ‘funding formula’ by which the State redistributes the taxation for educational delivery.
I am not familiar with the research, studies, facts, presentation and debate relating to State-wide educational needs when the formula was created, but I would be shocked and appalled that no method of revisiting or amending the ‘formula’ (which I did not find in the ED CODE - where can this info be found?) was permitted or planned. I would think our very highly paid ‘political animals’ would be so astute to know that time would change the situations facing our State’s school districts. You should know my feelings of how State and Fed reps should be paid the average of their constituents – they are all way over-paid now.
Although I strongly support our schools, and feel AUSD has been amazingly successful in stretching its budget – I absolutely hold them the highest regard for that – however I am not convinced the time is right for another parcel tax, which the BOE will likely go for anyway.
Here are my reasons at this time:
1. It will probably fail – Americans tend to want to ‘vote for the winner’, perhaps to reinforce their self-image of ‘successful’, or to just go along with ‘mob mentality”. Either way I concede this is a horrible reason, but I think it’s true and real.
2. We don’t yet know actual need. Gov. A ‘s final budget comes out when? – July? I understand this is after the perceived ‘do – or – die date’ for a parcel tax proposal, but the thought of “caving” and further taxing ourselves for the mere basics we already paid our taxes for, is an outrage. The Gov, faced with a school funding disaster may avoid political disgrace, and instead spin himself a hero to education by a last minute decision to do what he is bound by law to do.
3. Our State Government must uphold the laws and meet Prop 98 funding.
4. The “re-distribution formula” must be updated, our representatives must be held accountable.
5. There are other sources of funding to explore – The city is holding millions of dollars in a redevelopment fund earmarked by agreement for AUSD, which has been accumulating money since the early 90’s.
6. There is the 3% reserve which should be put into play, and relied on if we are unsuccessful in the standoff outlined above.
7. The PTA’s should be more ‘united’, and not just through PTA Council delegates. It should be a very powerful local political power, and could demand a cessation to the creation of additional redevelopment debt without a vote of the entire community.
If you think Alameda is hurting financially now, wait until we are trying to support all the additional growth without the additional taxes (tax increments)that will be siphoned off to pay the re-dev bonds. It is going to get much worse for Alameda. Property owners will have to continue to pony up more and more to maintain a status quo level of service. This will happen at the State level as well. The signs are clear, it is happening, the ‘political animals’, from local up, are bleeding the working class dry. Alameda is not an island of wealth. There is only so much in the well of this working class town.
Without disregarding the above I want AUSD to have a bigger budget, they have done so well with the belt already tightened so much - AUSD truly deserves more. It appears they are very careful stewards of our budget. Also, I want our kids to have more. I want our teachers and classified staff to get COLA. I just don’t know where it will come from. Despite my feelings I would be looking at material trade-offs to support the added parcel tax, but I am a long way from being a vocal supporter. It seems we are facing ever increasing household debt, our home being the major ‘one use only’ asset. In many ways I agree with robert’s post #4, but we who believe it is gov’t spending, not gov’t income where the problem lies, all must take some blame for not watching what gov’t has been doing with our $$.
Maybe if we all lived in teepees or longhouses, had lower material expectations and still had wifi, we could have enough leisure time to watch those controlling our money and maintain better, and greener, values. Then again maybe the problem is too many people for the land and gov’t to support.
Rob, Thanks for all the time and effort you put into this.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 20, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
The bottom line is this: The schools are running out of money. Regardless of who pays for what, the fact is that if these schools do not receive proper funding, then it will be the kids that go there who will have to pay the price.
We’ve discussed the seemingly backwards laws and regulations that cause the state’s budget to be be in eternal red, but since nobody is going to do anything about it ( aka- all you who sit protected under that little Prop 13 umbrella), then the parcel tax in my mind is about the next best option.
The schools need money. I’m not sure how much more simple that need can be underlined.
Lastly- these funding problems have only just begun. The housing crash is going to absolutely kill the budget many times over. If any of you are counting on the government for financial help… then that’s wishful thinking. If you want to live in a functioning community with good schools- of which many of you paid very dearly to live near- then it’s time to cough up the money folks.
… and that comment about homeowners having to pay more and more, well boo-hoo.. I feel sooo sorry for some of you who have had a 300% appreciation on your little 1940’s bungalows. If you’re looking for sympathy, none will be forthcoming, or not at least until property values are insanely out of the stratosphere and people earning an honest living can afford them. Pick your evil: impossibly high housing prices or increasingly high property taxes. Frankly the two will counteract each other anyway.
Comment by edvard — February 21, 2008 @ 7:23 am
At the February 26 BOE meeting the Board of Education will be discussing the actions AUSD needs to take in response to the Governor’s proposed budget that was released in early January, 2008.
First, local School Boards do not have the luxury of waiting for the Legislature to pass a budget. Once the Governor submits his proposed budget, school district CFOs must use State guidelines to readjust their budget assumptions for the next three years. The local School Board are REQUIRED to pass a budget by June 30th that includes two subsequent years.
Based on the revised budget, if the projected Reserves shows an amount of less than 3%, then staff needs to prepare a plan of action to address how the District will increase revenues and/or reduce expenditures or face sanctions from the County Office of Education.
Finally, to complicate the timelines and planing process even more, Education Code provides a layoff notification timelines for school district employees. For certificated employees (teachers and administrators), they must receive notification of a potential layoff by March 15. For example, if staff recommends making program reductions in school year 2008/09 that impact teachers, a school board must pass resolutions by March 2008. For classified employees, the notification date is 45 days prior to implementation.
For those of you who are looking for prior history of AUSD finances and actions taken over the past five years, I would start here:
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/finances.htm
Comment by Mike McMahon — February 21, 2008 @ 7:57 am
Rob:
The way I read “repugnant” in post 3 was that allowing seniors to vote for it but exempt themselves was repugnant. If that’s what he meant by it, I agree w/ him.
I know why this was done, the 2/3 minimum and P13 in general, but it is repugnant indeed.
The real problem here is the combination of P13 and the near-complete control of funding by Sacramento. Do you see a realistic chance of returning funding to local control? If so, what is the method (lawsuit? new legislation? etc)
Comment by dave — February 21, 2008 @ 8:12 am
Yes … exempting seniors while allowing them to have a say is why I called it repugnant.
More taxes are not the solution! What happens next year when the budget will invariably dry up? Another parcel tax?
Given the present state of the economy, good luck in trying to pass a parcel tax initiative. Can you spell DOA?
Comment by Phil S — February 21, 2008 @ 8:22 am
Happens all the time. Non-tax payers are allowed to vote themselves more benefits through their, “give them anything for their vote” representatives all the time. May be repugnant…is repugnant, but there’s nothing new about buying votes
Comment by Jack Richard — February 21, 2008 @ 8:57 am
“exempting seniors while allowing them to have a say is why I called it repugnant.”
Would you then only allow property owners to vote to avoid repugnancy?
Pretty serious disconnect
Comment by Dave Kirwin — February 21, 2008 @ 9:21 am
Phil:
While in nearly every other situation I’ll agree with that new taxes are not a solution, this one is different. CA’s per student funding is very low by national standards; that is compunded by the relatively high costs of operating in this state.
To be sure, parcel taxes are a less than optimal solution but unless/until the State releases its death grip on funding, they are all we have.
And in any case, they are a pittance. A few hundred dollars on a property worth several hundred thousand is nothing. In fact it is a fabulous investment in property values — school quality adds tremendous value to residential property.
Comment by dave — February 21, 2008 @ 9:37 am
MIKE
Can you explain the role of Alameda County Dept of Education?
Can they “balance the distribution” of ADA $ within its borders? Are they doing anything, taking a stand against the Gov’s budget - anything to help ‘ease the budget pain’, or are they just a big bureaucracy consuming $ but delivering nothing?
With 58 counties - how much goes to support this level of gov’t, and what do the tax payers get for it?
I would prefer that every teacher in the State get a pink slip warning notice. The rip-off of CA Public Education deserves national attention.
If the poorest funded school districts in every county overcomes its problems on their own (Parcel Taxes) The Gov can dance with glee – we would have solved his problem and showed how it is OK - that we can get by with a lot less.
Is that the message we want to send to Sac?
Comment by David Kirwin — February 21, 2008 @ 9:40 am
How is t possible that I want to agree with both #13 & #14?
My fever must be rocketing again
Comment by Dave Kirwin — February 21, 2008 @ 9:44 am
School supporters would not promote parcel taxes if there were alternatives in the short term. I think most of us (supporters) agree that they are regressive and don’t speak to the heart of the problem. The same with the exemption. It is simply a pragmatic decision in a desperate situation, not something we feel is the most fair, but it’s apparently legal.
I disagree with Mike that the exemption amounts to redistribution of wealth. The inequity does not really amount to that, it taxes us unevenly, but at least those who benefit from the loop hole are less likely to have seven kids in public school. I just think the term is alarmist and doesn’t ring true.
I think #3 Phil’s logic is confused. If the parcel tax did not have the seniors exemption, it wouldn’t have passed, therefore we would have LESS money rather than more, and I understand he would be happy with that.
#10 Phil again, I think more taxes at some level obviously ARE the solution because we don’t have enough money state wide to provide really decent education even in a good fiscal year. The decline of education in the state correlates to passage of Prop 13. I think restoring the car tax is a lesser evil. We need a more equitable system, but can’t expect services for free.
The thing that has me puzzled about the senior factor is the hospital tax which was much bigger than any school tax we were told voters would ever be approved, yet it passed without a “youth exemption”. My wife and I actually did not cast votes. While we did abdicate some responsibility, we didn’t create the initiative, we could not vote to tax our fellow citizens that amount for that purpose even though we are able to pay it, but we also could not bring ourselves to, in essence, vote to close the hospital.
My impression, and this may be a gross over simplification, is that seniors are worried about emergency response time for their own heart attacks, but don’t extend that concern to the long view of what strong schools mean to the community and culture. How human of them to be so self interested.
I’m not getting any younger, but I feel more concerned for the effect of strong schools on the community and culture than concerned about surviving a ride to Highland and being served there. I expect to die at some point.
Intuitively, it seems we are better off with our own hospital on an island like this, but what is not clear is how much benefit there actually is and to whom. In a serious seismic event we may have little more to work with than the hospital parking lot for triage until we get outside assistance.
Half the hospital tax amount, put toward schools, would stave off disaster. Does the CEO really make $400,000?!
Comment by Mark I — February 21, 2008 @ 9:47 am
Where can I find the salary info for AUSD? How much does Ardella Dailey make?
Comment by Phil S — February 21, 2008 @ 11:05 am
One of the roles of a County Office of Education is provide fiscal oversight over school districts residing in their county:
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/fcmatindicators.htm#1200
In Alameda County’s case, a 2005 Grand Jury found Alameda needed to step their oversight:
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/grandjury.htm
The County Offices have no authority regarding distribution of funding dollars, a responsibliity that resides in Sacramento.
Comment by Mike McMahon — February 21, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
While not current, here is link a 2004 article on superintendent pay of Alameda county superintendents.
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/supepay.htm
Comment by Mike McMahon — February 21, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Rob and Mark,
Many people (including some on this blog) have argued that the quality of the schools benefits all Alamedans by making their property more valuable, etc. Yet, some of the people who own that property don’t pay the parcel tax. That is what I meant by redistribution of wealth. Rob makes a good point about not making the perfect the enemy of the good, but neither should we foreclose the possibility of improving something that is inherently unfair. There is also a pragmatic consideration here: I actually think that amending the parcel tax to apply to everyone might stand a better chance of voter approval than increasing it for those who already pay. Why? Because the people who already pay would probably vote for that type of amendment. If that approach fails then I guess it really says something about the people who don’t pay the tax now; I mean the first tax passed with votes from people who knew they were going to be subject to it, as well as though who knew they would not be.
Comment by Mike Rich — February 21, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
I just thought of a phrase: Don’t let the good be the enemy of fairness.
Comment by Mike Rich — February 21, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
# 20
Great idea! But to be absolutely fair, only those who will be affected by the amendment should be allowed to vote.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 21, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
# 16 Mark’s pull quote
“I expect to die at some point.”
The good thing about old age is, it don’t last long.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 21, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
23. The abruptness of some of the decline is a little freaky.
Mike Rich, I understood your meaning with redistribution of wealth, but one usually hears it in a context of Marxism or socialism, which whether you think they are good ideas or not, they might be executed more equitably than the parcel tax. People who like to alarm us about socialism on the horizon might use redistribution of wealth as a buzz word.
It’s all about the politics of campaigns. If you write a fair law which taxes by the “door” or unit and not by parcel, you not only invite organized opposition from landlords, it’s also gets too complicated to explain easily. When phone banking you have to be able to tell people a definitive amount and not do calculations. If the tax was by assessed value it might be fairer in theory but with prop 13 new home owners who are carrying the rest of us on the property tax roles would again get tagged at a higher rate.
The implication I take from Phil S. asking about Ardella’s salary is that he is gunning for the alleged fat in the administration. No indication about his view of either the hospital tax or the CEO salary there.
Whether people think such positions are over compensated or not the market for superintendents is set and you can’t balance the budget or rectify school funding problems in the state by decimating the administration.
Comment by Mark I — February 22, 2008 @ 8:22 am
Mark,
I’m not making an alarmist argument regarding socialism, though I guess I can see how you might have thought that. If everyone who is paying the parcel tax currently were to vote in favor of extending it to those Alamedans who are not paying it currently there might be enough votes to pass that type of amendment. Also, I, for one, would be willing to have my own share of the tax increased if as part of the amendment the parcel tax were applied to everyone. I’m just saying that as part of the discussion about a parcel tax amendment that type of approach should be considered, because I doubt very much that simply proposing to increase the existing tax on the same people who pay it now would garner enough support. Also, you would have to increase the tax considerably to make up the shortfall if it were only to apply to the same people who pay it now. Applying it to a larger population would help solve the shortage.
As for what the superintendent is paid, that may be something people should look at, but not in the context of this discussion; it’s either an issue or it isn’t; it should not come up only when there is a budget crisis. If people care about what their public officials are being paid then they should always care and not just use that as a situational argument.
Comment by Mike Rich — February 22, 2008 @ 11:38 am
Mike,
Thanks for your recent links.
From your post #19, I wanted to bring to the attention to others, (who may be short on research time), that our AUSD Superintendent is the lowest paid school superintendent in the county relative to the number of students per District.
More important is to point out that AUSD spends much less of its budget on Administration than other districts, and from what I know working for another district and having many friends in education, (I hear the opinions of employees in 8 of the school districts in Alameda county), AUSD is an organization for which we can all be very proud. Most readers probably know that is an understatement.
Perhaps one reason that AUSD staff,- administration, teachers, and classified staff (service) are willing to work in Alameda for less money, is the fact that our PTA’s are motivated, our parents care and participate, and this family effort for education makes our kids more respectful and easier to teach. The fact that our classrooms are ‘family-assisted’ to such a level, might make the teaching experience more satisfying or gratifying than other districts. I fear that this will dissipate along with the “small-town quality” as Alameda struggles with problems pursuant to “big-city-growth.”
Alameda County Enrollment Salary Salary % Spent
1998-99 2003-04 Admin Salaries
Alameda 10,621 128,482 153,000 4.6
Albany 3,314 102,310 133,000 6.6
Berkeley 8,843 135,664 185,000 6.3
Castro Valley 8,391 125,538 167,293 5.7
Dublin 4,483 90,426 135,667 na
Fremont 31,844 124,498 185,792 5.6
Hayward 24,014 129,120 183,150 5
Livermore 14,329 123,875 168,000 6.6
Newark 7,421 104,000 155,000 8
Oakland 50,437 139,242 236,640 6.2
Piedmont 2,597 105,560 145,000 6
Pleasanton 14,039 157,730 196,000 5.4
San Leandro 8,653 119,583 148,253 na
San Lorenzo 11,554 115,000 175,000 5.7
Sources: California Department of Education, California Teachers Association
Comment by David Kirwin — February 22, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
Too bad the chart above did not keep its format. It can be seen at the bottom of the like in post #19
Comment by David Kirwin — February 22, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
That “link in post #19″
Comment by David Kirwin — February 22, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
In Mike McMahon’s post #18 there are 2 links - the 1st shows FCMAT (Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team) indicators - these are the warning signs, which if not corrected can lead to a school district losing local control to state administrators. (Like what happened to Oakland and Emeryville.
FCMAT Predictors of School Districts Needing Intervention
The following 11 conditions represent those school agency problems most commonly encountered by the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT). The presence of any one condition is not necessarily an indication of a school agency in trouble. Unavoidable short-term situations such as key administrative vacancies can result in brief and acceptable periods of exposure to one or more of the following conditions. Exceeding acceptable limits of exposure in one or more of the following conditions is often the blueprint for districts nearing or presently in a crisis situation.
1. Leadership Breakdown
o Governance crisis
o Ineffective staff recruitment
o Board micromanagement and special interest groups influencing boards
o Ineffective or no supervision
o Litigation against district
2. Ineffective Communication
o Staff unrest and morale issues
o Absence of communication to educational community
o Lack of interagency cooperation
o Breakdown of internal systems (payroll, position control)
3. Collapse of Infrastructure
o Unhealthful and unsafe facilities and sites
o Deferred maintenance neglected
o Low Budget Priority
o Local and state citations ignored
o No long-range plan for facility maintenance
4. Inadequate Budget Development
o Failure to recognize year-to-year trends
o Flawed ADA projections
o Failure to maintain reserves
o Salary and benefits in unrealistic proportions
o Insufficient consideration of long-term bargaining agreement effects
o Flawed multi-year projections
o Inaccurate revenue and expenditure estimations
5. Limited Budget Monitoring
o Failure to reconcile ledgers
o Poor cash flow analysis and reconciliation
o Inadequate business systems and controls
o Inattention to Countu of Education data
o Failure to review management control reports
o Bargaining agreements beyond state COLA
o Lawsuit settlements
6. Poor Position Control
o Identification of each position missing
o Unauthorized hiring
o Budget development process affected
o No integration of position control with payroll
7. Ineffective Management Information Systems
o Limited access to timely personnel, payroll, and budget control data and reports
o Inadequate attention to system life cycles
o Inadequate communication systems
8. Inattention to Categorical Programs
o Escalating general fund encroachment
o Lack of regular monitoring
o Illegal expenditures
o Failure to file claims
9. Substantial Long-Term Debt Commitments
o Increased costs of employee health benefits
o Certificates of participation
o Retiree health benefits for employees and spouse
o Expiring parcel taxes dedicated to ongoing costs
10. Human Resource Crisis
o Shortage of staff (administrators, teachers, support, and board)
o Teachers and support staff working out of assignment
o Students/classrooms without teachers
o Administrators coping with daily crisis intervention
o Inadequate staff development
11. Related Issues of Concern
o Local and state audit exceptions
o Disproportionate number of under performing schools
o Staff, parent, and student exodus from the school district
o Public support for public schools decreasing
o Inadequate community participation and communication
AUSD is in no danger of such action by the State.
The 2nd link is also interesting - I took the time to also go to its source, the Alameda Grand Jury of ‘03-04. This link goes over the warning signs of school district budget problems, as inspected by County Board of Edu (under the educational committee)
The reasons the Grand Jury enacted this committee was that 1.) County Dist. of Edu. was slacking in its job of fiscal oversight of its school districts for many years, and 2.) this was the last time the Gov raided Prop #98 funds (They were ‘borrowed’ not eliminated.)
I would have liked to read the responses required of ACBOE
It is not without pride that I noticed AUSD was not one of the 6 districts in the county who were having severe budget problems. AUSD has been diligent with its financial responsibility, (even when it meant every teacher received a pink slip).
This time- in the coming fiscal years I expect AUSD administrators will do the best that they can, yet I hope our BOE will at least take the stand that the suspension of Prop 98, -if it comes to that - represents a violation of trust so severe that it represents a fiscal emergency for which we are entitled to rely on our reserves until, the local citizens are called upon again to locally support our schools.
(Perhaps this is the only way to go back to local fiscal control of our schools as dave was questioning in #9)
2004-2005 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
________________________________________________________________________
33
CONCLUSION
The Alameda County Superintendent of Schools has not been effective in
preventing school district financial problems from developing into crises. There
have been a disproportionate number of fiscal crises in Alameda County in the
past half-dozen years. The superintendent has taken a minimalist approach to
the job of prevention.
The new law, AB 2756 of 2004, reemphasizes the primacy of prevention
and adds substantially to the county superintendent’s powers of prevention.
The law intends that the county superintendent be a full partner with the local
school districts in the maintenance of financial solvency.
The county superintendent has allocated too few staff to the task of
analyzing school district budgets and interim reports and particularly to
investigating evidence of financial distress.
The county superintendent has not publicly embraced the responsibility
under the law for preventing school district financial crises. Nor has the
superintendent shown leadership as the only county-wide elected education
official by becoming a public champion of the tough but necessary choices that
must be made by school districts to maintain balanced budgets.
2004-2005 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
________________________________________________________________________
34
– EXHIBIT A –
FCMAT PREDICTORS
OF SCHOOL AGENCIES NEEDING INTERVENTION
The following list represents the 15 conditions that have been found most
frequently to indicate fiscal distress and are those referenced in Assembly Bill
2756 (Daucher) and in the recently amended Education Code sections 42127
and 42127.6.
1. Governance crisis.
2. Absence of communication to educational community.
3. Lack of interagency cooperation.
4. Failure to recognize year-to-year trends.
5. Flawed Average Daily Attendance (ADA) projections.
6. Failure to maintain reserves.
7. Insufficient consideration of long-term bargaining agreement effects.
8. Flawed multi-year projections.
9. Inaccurate revenue and expenditure estimations.
10. Poor cash flow analysis and reconciliation.
11. Bargaining agreements beyond state COLA.
12. No integration of position control with payroll.
13. Limited access to timely personnel, payroll, and budget control date
and reports.
14. Escalating general fund encroachment.
15. Lack of regular monitoring.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 22, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
Rob,
The politicians I refer to are the ones that get the budget money, split it up, and dole it out. Not some helpless volunteer sitting on a board. The money is already there to fund our schools, pave our streets, and keep us safe. They don’t need more. Government budgets are funded in a very small part by our taxes. What they need is to stop funding their pet projects. Capitalism will take care of itself, less is more when it comes to government and the market. But, Schools, streets, and safety don’t make politicians any money, or any points with corporations. I don’t think I need to go into detail on how it all works. If we agree to give them more, we are in essence saying, go ahead, keep throwing away what we give you already, keep spending billions on unwanted prok that makes you, personally, money. By saying no, we are saying, do it right next time. With government, you never get back what you give up.
Comment by robert — February 24, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
robert #30:
“Government budgets are funded in a very small part by our taxes. ”
Small part? What else is there?
Dave Kirwin
Comment by Davie Kirwin — February 27, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
Dave, Oops, not very awake that day. I was thinking of sales tax, not income.
Comment by robert — February 27, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
Err..not property tax.
Comment by robert — February 27, 2008 @ 8:11 pm