Leather or upholstered?
Tonight the County Board of Education will be making a decision on the NCLC/ACLC/Nea Charter School appeal. I have been trying to get a copy of the packet with the attachment (8A) that would tell us all what the County staff has recommended, unfortunately it’s been tough to get my hands on. Of course I probably should have checked Mike McMahon’s site first, he has posted the documents I was looking for including the County Board of Education Executive Report of the Review and the Staff Findings.
In the meantime, I made a public document request to the Alameda Unified School District to get the budgets* for the past few years for Alameda Community Learning Center. After all, with all the talk about how efficient ACLC is, it should show that even with the revised MOU, that ACLC has and is operating clearly in the black. Oh by the way, despite news to the contrary that AUSD is non-responsive when one makes a public document request, I have found the opposite. They were completely responsive, and quick, when I made my online request through their website.
So is ACLC more efficient than traditional AUSD schools? Well certainly if one looks at how much excess revenue they were able to collect prior to the new MOU kicking in, one would say, sure they are efficient. Look at how they were able to build their reserve! Look at how much money they were able to save! But it appears that the savings comes largely on the back of AUSD and the students that it serves. In 2004-2005, ACLC transferred to AUSD (it’s under “Transfers of Direct and Indirect Support Costs) about $72K. In 2005-2006, ACLC transferred around $58K to AUSD, in 2006-2007, ACLC transferred even less at around $42K. In those three years they were able to build quite a substantial reserve fund. In fact in 2006-2007 ACLC had an excess of $146K.
But then something changes in 2007-2008, also the year when ACLC decides that it needs to expand its “21st Century” model of education to serve more students. The amount the has to be transferred to AUSD jumps from a paltry $42K to $152K (the money has yet to be transferred though, I assume they just pay up at the end of the school year). And this year instead of a positive flow into ACLC and its reserves, they are looking at at deficiency of $119K. If ACLC continues at this rate, they will run through their reserves in about three years. Although at a parent meeting of ACLC (posted online at YouTube, around 3:03) they will be using money raised by the ACLC Foundation to help fund their reserve this year that will be taking a hit from finally reimbursing AUSD for the real cost of direct support from the school district to ACLC. The ACLC Foundation is sort of like the Alameda Education Foundation, but the money will be solely used for ACLC students to, you know, help them learn how to be engaged in the larger community as whole.
Next year, according to this parent meeting, they are looking at a shortfall just like the other schools and are looking to the parents to help close that gap. One would think that as efficient and effective as we have been hearing that ACLC is, this shouldn’t have been a problem for them. Maybe they are able to successfully keep the cuts away from the students? Not so, in the part one of the parent meeting video they talk about cuts such as eliminating college counseling (I assume that Encinal will be expected to pick up that slack), eliminating a school wide field trip, eliminating the yearbook subsidy (parents to pay the full cost for yearbooks), eliminating the “Freedom from Chemical Dependence” (FCD) program. The elimination of one staff position would then also possibly eliminate their much touted “Learning to Learn” class, making the Humanities class bigger by combining grade levels, and reducing Alegbra to only four times a week. Oh, and they might have to take away the free Rosetta Stone access. You may have seen Rosetta Stone as advertised on late night TV or in mall kiosks.
There’s some other stuff about pledging and donating money which is a bit uncomfortable to watch. There seems to be immense pressure to give money or make a pledge — the time of the video 90 families had not pledged or donated anything! I was expecting at the end for the names of the families who had not donated or pledged money to roll like credits on the screen. By the way, they now take Visa or MasterCard if you don’t have the cash. ACLC is also encourging ACLC parents to give their federal government stimulus check to ACLC as well. What I am dying to know though what was the bullet point that ended up being blacked out on the screen at 4:38 on the video.
Anyway, I will leave you with the remarks that were made at the last Alameda County Board of Ed meeting, they only recently got the video up, these comments were made by a student at Encinal:
Hello, I’m Mirna R[...] a senior and student body secretary at Encinal High School. This is a response to Carlton Grizzle’s statement. Yes, I am one of the thieves who intend to rip away the love to learn from the hundreds of families who are disllusioned by the Alameda Unified School District. I am one of those conniving students speaking against the NCLC charter. But let’s take a moment to look over how the Alameda Unified School District has been beneficial to ACLC before we go off bashing on it. Why not examine the many students who leach off Encinal’s community? Why not examine the many students who are taking part in the “uninspiring” AP and foreign language classes at my school? Why not make note of the fact that some of the ACLC students are even enrolled in Encinal’s JROTC program? Why not look over the students who are involved in one language class at Encinal, three at the College of Alameda, and one, yes, one at their own school?
Let me also take a moment to address the maturity level that one of the ACLC students mentioned he felt he had to have when he first reached ACLC. I have a few questions about this statement. Do ACLC student feel mature when they decide not to go to class one day and listen to their Ipods while dozing off on their many couches? Their unofficial mascot is a couch.
I am one of the students at Encinal High School, I am inspired to learn and I love where I am. And one last thing, Jack O’Connell came to visit our school too, because he saw that the budget crisis that we were facing was very detrimental. And he saw that the AP classes that ACLC kids love so much were about to be cut. Thank you.
———————————————————–
* ACLC Unaudited Financials, the 07-08 is not complete as it is mid year, but has the approved Board budget numbers, which are also the projected numbers.
- Fiscal Year 04-05
- Fiscal Year 05-06
- Fiscal Year 06-07 – this is particularly interesting because it has both the 06-07 financials and the projections for the 07-08. You can see where the cuts have been made under services, such as travel and conferences received a huge slice in funding as seemingly did consultants services/operating expenses (5800), but in reality under the board approved budget line item ended up getting approved for $110K. This line item also covers expenses incurred when ACLC sends its kids to the College of Alameda for instruction. Also communications was given a 64% bump from 06-07 to 07-08.
- Fiscal Year 07-08
“Hello, I’m Mirna R[...] a senior and student body secretary at Encinal High School.”
“Yes, I am one of the thieves who intend to rip away the love to learn from the hundreds of families who are disllusioned by the Alameda Unified School District. I am one of those conniving students speaking against the NCLC charter.”
“I have a few questions about this statement. Do ACLC student feel mature when they decide not to go to class one day and listen to their Ipods while dozing off on their many couches? Their unofficial mascot is a couch.”
My question is: Does this qualify Mirna R[...] as crabby, cantankerous or a curmudgeon? Drop a ka-blooey on ol’ Mirna, Mark a.k.a. (you name it)
Comment by Jack Richard — April 22, 2008 @ 8:53 am
What a bit of nonsense from Mirna R! She obviously is another person who drank the Kool-aid laced with “it’s us vs. them”.
The truth is that every Alameda public school student should try to get as much as they can from the education we-the-tax payers are funding. Yes, that includes ACLC students participating in Jr ROTC and / or AP classes at Encinal. Why should we pay teachers to teach classes that are only half full?
Does Mirna R. think she deserves special treatment in an AP class of 12 when there are more students who want the same class as she? Is she a “more deserving” student because her PE sweatshirt says “ENCINAL” instead of “ACLC”?
Get real! Let’s take care of all the alameda public school students, no matter which facility they choose to attend.
Comment by David Kirwin — April 22, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
re #2, you are taking her remarks way out of context.
Her remarks quoted above were an extemporaneous response to an attack earlier in the evening when one of the ACLC/NCLC leaders accused NCLC “detractors” of being, among other things, “thieves.” He also used the verb “kill,” though I can’t recall the exact phrasing. I think it was something like the NCLC detractors were killing the learning opportunities or spirit or something of kids. He also gestured/pointed dramatically in the general direction of those of us opposed to the charter (including the student quoted above) while making one of his accusations. I think it was when he called us “thieves,” though it may have been when we he was using the verb “kill.”
She was responding ironically by identifying herself as one of the “thieves” and then pointing out all the ways EHS in particular helped ACLC. If one reviews the video of the meeting, I think this will become clear.
Btw, last night’s Alameda County Board of Education meeting had no such acrimony.
After hearing from the “pro NCLC” side, the “con NCLC side” and County staff, the County board voted 6-0 (with Dennis Chaconas absent) to deny the application of the proposed new NCLC charter school in Alameda.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — April 23, 2008 @ 6:21 am
# 3
Well, if that’s the case with Mirna, I guess she doesn’t qualify for Mark’s and DL’s three “c’s” . Shame on Do for not putting her comments in context and shame on me for being too lazy to “fact check” the video. Sorry, and I withdraw my question in #1. Mirna will have to wait a few years for the ka-blooey.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 23, 2008 @ 8:27 am
Lest some of you have forgotten Carlton responded here that he did not mean to direct his assertions to the kids/Mirna in attendance. Also, Brooke Brigance’s son admitted to being the author of what Mirna read. Frankly I have come to find all this endless back and forth such a waste of time. To paraphrase Mike McMahon the inevitable is being held off. Charters have the law behind them and a sizeable amount of the public: “A posse ad esse” NCLC WILL BE a reality in the not so distant future. For anyone interested here is something from Carlton that was sent out to many last evening.
Hello NCLC Families and Supporters,
Despite the warnings that getting the NCLC charter petition approved the
first time around would be nearly impossible, I had hoped tonight would be
our night! However, the vote at the Alameda County Board of Education went
exactly as many experts predicted and ACOE denied our charter. Due to the
increase in charter school applications, chartering organizations like ACOE
are being hypercritical about any new charter proposals, and most serious
charter petitioners expect denial the first time through the process. In
fact, the denial process is often seen as a way of finding out exactly what
the chartering organizations want to see in the petition.
As our experts advised us, we will be using all of the valuable input given
to us by both AUSD and ACOE to rewrite our charter petition. Once we have
rewritten the petition we will resubmit our charter petition to AUSD. Quite
frankly, regardless of the details we can give and promises we can make, i’s
that have been dotted and t’s that have been crossed, we would be surprised
if AUSD ever approves our charter petition. If they deny us, we will return
to the county.
The encouraging part of tonight’s meeting was the positive reception we
received from the ACOE board. ACOE’s procedures allow them to only consider
the original petition as submitted to AUSD. Any new information that easily
answered questions that the Board had could not be considered in their
decision. They acknowledged their frustration with this fact, and despite
their vote, they expressed their appreciation for all our hard work and
encouraged us to start the process all over again. I believe that if they
could have voted with their hearts we would have had no problem getting
approved tonight.
The bad news is, we didn’t get approved tonight, and that means the new
charter school will not open until the 2009-2010 school year. The good news
is, we have the information we need to create a bulletproof charter petition
and we will not give up. Building something great takes a lot of effort and
sometimes a lot of time. Please continue to give us your support and
together we will make this happen! Aren’t our children worth our investment
of time and effort?
You’ll be hearing from us.
Carlton Grizzle
PS A great big thank you goes out to all the supporters who came out
tonight. You all rock!
Comment by poguemahone — April 23, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
And as was mentioned before, Ian M. did not admit to being the author of Mirna’s statements , just the section at the end probably about Jack O’Connell.
Comment by Lauren Do — April 23, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
I am having a hard time figuring out how Jack was confused by what Lauren posted about Mirna and I don’t understand where DK is coming from either. I would have been inclined to respond just as Mirna did, had I been in her position and when I read the post I think I understood it precisely.
I find Pogomonkey’s assertion that “Carlton responded here that he did not mean to direct his assertions to the kids/Mirna in attendance” to be totally lame.
I wasn’t there so there is no way for me to judge how delusional Carlton’s assertion about the board voting from the heart may be, but I would wager that a vote from the heart would not have been any 0-6 reversal.
Comment by Mark I — April 23, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
#7 Mark Irons, How’s this for lame? F- you and all your assinine bullshit. Over and out.
Dr. Lame-o aka poguemahone
Comment by poguemahone — April 23, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
It doesn’t matter that Mirna’s words were reactive – she made her point that her school choice was more important than the choice of others. She should get her choice and others should be denied their choice. That was the whole reason she and her friends were at the ACOE meeting. Therefore my position in post #2 stands, and I believe it stands unchallenged.
As to her comments on the maturity of ACLC students – she cannot possibly try to imply that there is any high school (or middle or elementary school in Alameda) that has no students who stuff ear buds in their heads, or kick back on couches, chairs, benches, the grass or even the stairs. And if that behavior is a problem, why is such behavior not banned in any Alameda public school? In fact, take it farther – ban all iPods, MP3 players, cell phones etc, from use on school grounds. Certainly no bikes or skateboards should ever enter a public bldg with wheels on a surface.
Unfortunately, Alameda’s once respectable character can no longer enforce such discipline, and Mirna doesn’t believe ACLC should try to develop self-discipline in their students by enabling them to learn to deal with consequences. (You know -like in the real world outside of school.)
What is left for society? – A single, one size fits all, assembly-line education process, striving to achieve a passable form of mediocrity? Is all we get to be higher taxes to support single focus accountability, zeroed in on teaching to pass a uniform fill-in-the-bubble test?
Is that Nero’s fiddle I hear in the background?
Comment by Dave Kirwin — April 23, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
#6 I stand corrected. I forgot that it was, “just the section at the end” probably right after, “Hello, I’m Mirna…..”
Comment by poguemahone — April 23, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
#5, #8, #10
#5 - Frankly I have come to find all this endless back and forth such a waste of time.
-Comment by poguemahone
Yeah, me too!
Comment by dk — April 23, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
In response to #8 @poguemahone As an Alameda educator I’m embarrassed that you would display such a lack of vocabulary and mature dialogue to make your point. I think Mirna, an EHS student has demonstrated a more articulate argument to this discussion.
Comment by Diana Kenney — April 23, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
I’m sure that the NCLC proponents must be thrilled to know what a classy and articulate spokesperson they have in pogue. He’s really doing NCLC a world of good.
Seriously, I think it would be in the best interest of everyone on both sides of this issue to tone down the rhetoric.
On the one hand, I have been disturbed that some NCLC detractors have unnecessarily demonized ACLC. ACLC clearly works and serves some students well. Some of the characterizations of ACLC students and their parents are unfair. I have many friends with kids at ACLC who love it because it gives their kids learning opportunities that just aren’t available in traditional schools. Despite some of the characterizations, these parents are not elitists looking to “get theirs, the rest of us be damned.” Because ACLC’s approach does work and the demand is high, cooperative efforts should be made to see if the program can be expanded to meet the demand and to serve populations that are currently underrepresented.
On the other hand, I think the proponents of NCLC would be well advised to clearly acknowledge the very real budgetary crisis that AUSD, and the thousands of kids it serves, is facing and to work towards getting the budget issues resolved for all the kids in Alameda. I have been disturbed by what I, as an interested but relatively neutral observer, have perceived as a real indifference by the supporters of NCLC to the thousands of students who ultimately will not be served by NCLC. My perception may very well be wrong, but NCLC has done nothing of late to change that perception. Some visible and demonstrable efforts by NCLC to work towards resolving the problems faced by thousands of other students in AUSD is essential. ACLC/NCLC’s enthusiastic and active support of the parcel tax might be a good place to start. While I know that NCLC has made statement of support, I believe it was qualified by something along the lines of “even though it won’t help us.” That type of statement just doesn’t cut it.
Let’s face it, the huge budgetary crisis AUSD must deal with is a major obstacle to any new charter school. If the budgetary issues can be resolved, I suspect that NCLC will find the going a little smoother.
Comment by anonymous — April 23, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
#13 anon - excellent post.
Comment by Jack B — April 24, 2008 @ 6:17 am
re #13 “Seriously, I think it would be in the best interest of everyone on both sides of this issue to tone down the rhetoric:”
I agree wholeheartedly and have made such efforts to that end here and elsewhere. Civility isn’t sufficient to solve any of our collective problems, but it is necessary. Of course, passionate disagreement is appropriate. But demonizing the “other” (especially in local civic affairs) is wrong and, in the long run, counterproductive.
I have been as active as anyone in opposing NCLC’s charter application. Mr. Grizzle has been as passionate as anyone in supporting it. I was pleased Tuesday night at the County board meeting when Mr. Grizzle introduced himself and we had a friendly conversation for a few minutes. That doesn’t mean we agree on this issue or that we’re going to be bff’s or anything. It does mean cooperation and civility are possible and I genuinely appreciated the chance to talk with Mr. Grizzle in some way other than from in front a computer screen. For those of us who plan to be “involved” in Alameda for the long haul, there are many, many miles ahead. We are all going to have to work together somewhere down the road, if not on this issue, then on another and another and so on.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — April 24, 2008 @ 6:30 am
I still have heard no good argument for how charter schools hurt the host district financially. In fact, for Alameda; the more charter students we have the greater the amount of edu dollars guaranteed from the State. -There would be MORE $$$ coming into Alameda to educate kids, not less. Too bad AUSD can’t deal with that. It seems more like a ‘power and control’ impact than a financial impact to AUSD.
Comment by David Kirwin — April 24, 2008 @ 6:35 am
There two fiscal impacts to a school district when a charter school opens:
First, each school district has to do what every business does by running financial, personnel and computer systems to operate. In addition, each school district is required to comply with Education Code as well as myraid of Federal laws for special education, Title 1 and other mandates. A typical school district spends between 6 to 12% for these functions. These administrative costs are spread across all of students attending a school district. So when a District student leaves for a charter school, there is no reduction in administrative costs. In fact, the school district incurs greater administrative costs because now they are responsible for oversight of the charter school operations. By law, school districts can only recover 3% of administration costs from the charter school.
Second, the state of California does not provide funding for faciliites. Each school district is responsible for building enough facilities to meet the demand of its population. When a charter school is established and the district is required to provide facilities those costs are not recovered by the school district.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 24, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Mike,
On your second point in #17, under the Prop 39, a district can charge a charter for a pro rata share of facilities costs. Your post seems to indicate the contrary. Could you please clarify? Is Alameda not charging ACLC its pro rata share of the facilities costs?
BTW: I’m not saying a pro rata charge is enough to cover the actual costs, but I’m confused by your post.
Comment by Anonymous (the same anonymous as #13) — April 24, 2008 @ 10:04 am
#18 You are obviousily more knowledgeable on Prop 39 than I. If you say the District can charge pro rata charge then I will defer to your knowledge. I would also agree that the pro rata charge would most likely does not cover the “true” costs of financing, depreciation and land.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 24, 2008 @ 10:18 am
Mike,
Thanks for your response. After a little further investigating, it seems that the pro rata share chargeable under Prop 39 only applies to facilities costs paid out of unrestricted general fund revenue. So, for instance, it looks like the cost of servicing bonds used to pay for facility construction and upgrades cannot be charged back to the charter.
The net effect of this is that the amount that can be charged to a charter school is probably de minimus and would likely not come anywhere near the actual costs of providing and maintaining the facilities.
Comment by Anonymous (the same anonymous as #13) — April 24, 2008 @ 11:20 am
#13 I do not claim to be, nor am I a “spokesperson” for NCLC. I am a parent interested in the education of my children.
Diana Kenney, your response is so obvious, predictable and trite. Perhaps as an educator it would do you some good to read and familiarize yourself with the guileless, immature dialogue and vocabulary of such vulgar crétins as Henry Miller, Mark Twain, Charles Bukowski, Allen Ginsberg, Marquis de Sade, Charles Baudelaire, Radclyffe Hall, Oscar Wilde, Anaïs Nin and James Joyce. Once you are familiar with such excrement you might organize a book burning and help save us all from our wretched selves.
Comment by poguemahone — April 24, 2008 @ 11:30 am
#17 Mike - Last month you posted links to court cases that allowed school districts to charge charters rent, but not at an amount that would create profiting of the host district from the Charter’s rent payment. When I read that it appeared the court does allow the district to recover all costs of the land and facility. The district can also charge foe maintenance and custodial services, but only to recover actual total cost, not for profit.
Also the Charter pays the district a fee for the administration services provided by the district. Smart negotiating between the host district and the charter should be a win-win. Obviously no Charter wants to pay for things “every business does by running financial, personnel and computer systems to operate”; AUSD should be working WITH Charter schools they allow, so that that AUSD expenses are more fully utilized and the Charter need not spend the 6-12% for setting up these services for themselves, but pays the district, thus creating the win-win.
So what are the costs to the district?
Comment by David Kirwin — April 24, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
When I started to discuss charter schools I presented my “opinion” that charter schools as created by the California legislature was bad public policy. If the Legislature wanted to create an alternative “public education” system in addition to maintaining the existing system, all I want is a level playing field or have the Legislature pay for the differences.
Any discussions about specific District costs really isn’t the issue. The bigger question since California under invests in education already, are the benefits derived from charter schools worth the costs being borne by local school districts.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 24, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
David — in response to #22.
Prop 39 strictly limits what a district can charge a charter for facilities use. Prop 39 states in pertinent part:
The school district may charge the charter school a pro rata share (based on the ratio
of space allocated by the school district to the charter school divided by the total
space of the district) of those school district facilities costs which the school district
pays for with unrestricted general fund revenues. The charter school shall not be
otherwise charged for use of the facilities.
The issue of what properly can and cannot be charged to a charter under this provision is very complex. A good summary can be found at http://www.cacharterschools.org/pdf_files/Proposition_39_Facilities_Fees.pdf.
Because certain costs associated with charter facilities are likely excluded from the “facilities costs” as defined under Proposition 39, it appears that there are real costs that cannot be collected from charters pursuant to Proposition 39.
Comment by Anonymous (the same anonymous as #13) — April 24, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
I really don’t want to get back into debating charters right now (and intend for this to be my last comment on the subject for awhile because I’m trying to spend all the time I can in the next few weeks on Measure H), but I will (try) to offer an additional answer to question #16 re “how charter schools hurt the host district financially.”
In part one of his explanation in #17, MM explained that “each school district has to do what every business does by running financial, personnel and computer systems to operate” and then explained the administrative costs.
The “personnel costs” of all this may in some cases be much more significant than any other costs. If a new charter were draw a couple-few students from each classroom at each grade level across the district to create a new charter school of 300 students, the financial impact on AUSD would be as harmful as would any precipitous 300 student decline in enrollment. The concept is that if every fourth grade class at a school with three fourth grades were to lose four students to a charter school, the classes sizes would move from 30 students to 26 students. The district would lose the ADA for each of those 12 students, but would not have lost enough students to cut their operating costs. With only 78 fourth graders, there are too many kids to only have two fourth grade classes. So, the school (for this grade) has lost 13.3% of its revenue (which is ADA based) due to the exodus of students while almost all of the school’s costs remain the same (e.g., the same teacher and staff count, electricity costs, etc.). There will be a slight decrease in costs (e.g., less water usage, fewer books needed, etc.), but personnel costs are by far the biggest cost of operating a school and they won’t change (in this examlpe. That process, in which revenues fall much, much faster than costs when there is declining enrollment, is one significant way that charter schools can hurt a host district financially. When the charter draws from across the district (as ACLC does and NCLC hopes to), this affect is much larger than if one specific site were to be converted to a charter.
Roughly speaking, this same dynamic in reverse is why some favor closing/consolidating schools to save money (and why AUSD may end up doing so, especially if Measure H fails). Bigger schools are more efficient financially. Expanding charters is financially analogous to opening more small schools. Not expanding charters is financially analogous to consolidating neighborhood schools. Ironically(?), AUSD might some day have to close traditional schools to offset the financial impact of opening a new charter schools.
Closing traditional schools to be more efficient financially while at the same time expanding charters (which tends to have the financial impact described above) might be working at cross purposes.
Btw, since the large majority of households do not have school age children, on average, the parent of each of those fourth graders pays only about 25% of the tax revenues needed to educate that student. So one could argue (as I have) that the money we’re talking about is “the community’s money” not “that student’s parent’s money.” It might then follow that the tax-paying community at large (not just that student’s family) has an interest in the decision whether or not expanding charters is or is not a good public policy.
Of course, under current charter law, AUSD’s school board and the County school board may not use these financial impacts as a factor in granting or not granting a charter. (However, citizens concerned about whether or not this is good public policy may.)
Ultimately, this policy question is about tradeoffs. I acknowledge that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of “the charter question.” This year, with all the financial horrors our schools and community are facing, my view has been that expanding charters in Alameda is not the best policy tradeoff. I know others disagree and I know we’ll be talking about this again.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — April 24, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
#24
The restricted funds for facilities would include things like Measure “C” - money targeted for specific projects. I agree that Charters should not have to pay a share of that - we the Alameda property owners are already paying that bill. I can’t think of any restricted facility money that would be “consumed” by a Charter school, or any tenant for that matter. The fact that $$ is “restricted” means, by definition, it is already allocated and likely not for a “tenant” cost.
I will try to find some time to follow the link you posted. Certainly Prop #39 is complex and open to interpretation which is why there are so many legal cases involving these issues, but the State seems to have tried to make Charters work with host districts. As Mike M pointed out it is not really a level playing field – Charters are provided certain advantages, including exclusions to some labor issues they don’t have to adhere to that the District does have to fund, but the fact that Charters are granted the benefit makes their dollars more efficient, and they get more dollars per student from the state than the general AUSD student – but of course it is not all about money, but how we can best service the needs of Alameda students. That is the real issue. I am just not seeing the negative financial affect which was being touted so strongly. – Where is it?
From the higher education professors I have talked to, it seems that charter schools as created by the California legislature is not bad public policy, but rather a system for incubating new educating concepts to try to find solutions to the areas where CA public education has not been successful. Of course the consequece is that in some areas it created a “cottage industry’, and as with everything, some of these experiments are worthy and creating success, and others are not.
Comment by David Kirwin — April 24, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Rob - you left out the obvious which invalidates your whole premises. Classes need not be all one grade. There are many advantages to ‘multi-grade’ classes. There are multi-grade classes at all levels. Certainly in college and high school it is unquestioned. My son is at Earhart elementary in a class of 2nd & 3rd graders. So what is the problem? The students are not harmed, and in fact are probably benefited. Perhaps it is an extra challenge for the teachers, but I am confidant they can manage.
BTW – I understand that AUSD has negotiated a raise next year for our teachers – How is that going to be paid for? Measure “H” perhaps? In 2010 we will have to submit a 3-year budget to the COE – How will we do that with all the parcel taxes ending in 2012
Comment by David Kirwin — April 24, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Re #27: Must . . . not . . . get . . . into . . . more . . . charter . . . debate . . . now.
But I think I must respond to the comment that I “left out the obvious which invalidates your whole premises.”
I may well be missing something, but so too may the analysis of #27.
The fact that classes need not (and perhaps even should not) be all one grade doesn’t change the fact that when a few students leave a school from whatever grade(s), combining classes to reduce costs (i.e., to require fewer teachers and staff) rarely can happen in the same proportion and to the same degree as the revenue drop that occurs. Even if the policy were to be that 3rd and 4th grade classes would be combined, most of the time the drop in enrollment in that school won’t happen in neat round numbers in such a way that classes could be reconfigured. If that is true, when there is declining enrollment of the sort I described in #25, the costs of running a school remain relatively constant while the revenues drop comparatively more quickly. The math suggests financial harm in such circumstances.
Leaving the “charter issue” out of it for the sake of clarifying the process I was trying to make, are you suggesting that declining enrollment generally does not, to use your words from #16, “hurt [a] district financially?” That seems to be #27’s premise (unless the argument is just that we should go for much higher class sizes (whether multi-age or not). Perhaps we should, but I don’t see how that changes the financial analysis/impact I tried to outline).
Comment by Rob Siltanen — April 24, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
Rob, sorry to keep drawing to back to post, but…
First I want to state again for the record that I am a huge fan of AUSD. Our school district was perhaps the most important element for deciding to move here when we did.
Second, I want to state that I really know nothing about the specific charter schools in Alameda, or the ones petitioning to operate in Alameda. At the beginning of the charter issue I was opposed to the new charter proposal on the basis that there would be a negative affect on the finances of AUSD. Now I am not convinced there would be a negative effect, and I am certainly not convinced that the possible, or potential financial effect would outweigh the benefit of a charter school for the community.
The reason I have taken the argument in favor of charters in this debate is theoretical. In theory there seems to be a strong reason to support charter schools - to learn from their successes, as well as to eliminate the failures as quickly as possible. Charter schools can be looked at as “education experiments”. Even AUSD has to admit we are not 100% successful for all our students, but we are very good. Who better to conduct “education experiments”? It seems that the State even provides a financial incentive for under-funded districts like Alameda. (”Under-funded” meaning below avg ADA)
Obviously there will be arguments as to the evaluation process etc…
Back to the point…
Rob, even now you are speculating that without students leaving traditional AUSD to try something more in line with a student’s, or their family’s goals, that there is 100% capacity in all classes, for all teachers, at all our schools….
Pulleez..- We parents of kids in school know that ain’t so. We all have been at our local school’s window at summer’s end, finding out who their teacher is, what class they will be in, who their classmates will be.
We all know the ongoing struggle at those times that the district, the principals, and teachers are going through to maximize classroom occupancy. There are always some students who don’t even get to attend their local school to achieve this goal. That’s the way it is now, so I don’t see how teacher staffing ratios would be any more adversely affected with a reduced # of students. You could argue that schools’ staff, from principals to custodians would remain constant despite a slight drop in student numbers. I of course would point out that if the students are leaving for a charter instead of a private school then AUSD would make up that difference with the maintenance and operation charges to the charter renting other AUSD facilities and we would be back to even-steven.
Also I would state the obvious argument this makes for larger school sizes, despite the desires of the authors of Measure “H” to keep little Franklin elementary open. With larger schools that “overhead” Mike M spoke of would be closer to that 6% than the 12% overhead of our littlest school. (In all fairness, I only know the Moonies to be some of the authors as Barbara never provided the information to this blog that she had promised on “Video’s Worth…”, on March 16th, before she disappeared after heading to the crab feed.)
Also today from the article in The Sun I learned new terms in the charter vernacular; dependant vs, independent charters. Not surprisingly, as life goes on, so must the learning. Do you have any input on dependant vs, independent charters?
Comment by David Kirwin — April 24, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
Rob, sorry to keep drawing to back to post, but…
First I want to state again for the record that I am a huge fan of AUSD. Our school district was perhaps the most important element for deciding to move here when we did.
Second, I want to state that I really know nothing about the specific charter schools in Alameda, or the ones petitioning to operate in Alameda. At the beginning of the charter issue I was opposed to the new charter proposal on the basis that there would be a negative affect on the finances of AUSD. Now I am not convinced there would be a negative effect, and I am certainly not convinced that the possible, or potential financial effect would outweigh the benefit of a charter school for the community.
The reason I have taken the argument in favor of charters in this debate is theoretical. In theory there seems to be a strong reason to support charter schools - to learn from their successes, as well as to eliminate the failures as quickly as possible. Charter schools can be looked at as “education experiments”. Even AUSD has to admit we are not 100% successful for all our students, but we are very good. Who better to conduct “education experiments”? It seems that the State even provides a financial incentive for under-funded districts like Alameda. (”Under-funded” meaning below avg ADA)
Obviously there will be arguments as to the evaluation process etc…
Back to the point…
Rob, even now you are speculating that without students leaving traditional AUSD to try something more in line with a student’s, or their family’s goals, that there is 100% capacity in all classes, for all teachers, at all our schools….
Pulleez..- We parents of kids in school know that ain’t so. We all have been at our local school’s window at summer’s end, finding out who their teacher is, what class they will be in, who their classmates will be.
We all know the ongoing struggle at those times that the district, the principals, and teachers are going through to maximize classroom occupancy. There are always some students who don’t even get to attend their local school to achieve this goal. That’s the way it is now, so I don’t see how teacher staffing ratios would be any more adversely affected with a reduced # of students. You could argue that schools’ staff, from principals to custodians would remain constant despite a slight drop in student numbers. I of course would point out that if the students are leaving for a charter instead of a private school then AUSD would make up that difference with the maintenance and operation charges to the charter renting other AUSD facilities and we would be back to even-steven.
Also I would state the obvious argument this makes for larger school sizes, despite the desires of the authors of Measure “H” to keep little Franklin elementary open. With larger schools that “overhead” Mike M spoke of would be closer to that 6% than the 12% overhead of our littlest school. (In all fairness, I only know the Moonies to be some of the authors as Barbara never provided the information to this blog that she had promised on “Video’s Worth…”, on March 16th, before she disappeared after heading to the crab feed.)
Also today from the article in The Sun I learned new terms in the charter vernacular; dependant vs, independent charters. Not surprisingly, as life goes on, so must the learning. Do you have any input on dependant vs, independent charters?
Comment by David Kirwin — April 24, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
To reinforce the 2nd to last paragraph above, AUSD’s largest elementary school, Amelia Earhart Elementary Was Named One of California’s 2008 Distinguished Schools
See today’s Alameda Daily News. http://www.alamedadailynews.com/
Comment by David Kirwin — April 24, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
Here is more info on how under Prop #39 school districts can recover virtually all facility costs from charter schools. It shows that ACLC should have been billed for their use of Encinal‘s gym and when ACLC students participated in AUSD AP classes, which were part of the gripes posted on this blog. Virtually everything from phone systems, intercom, e-mail, clock and bell service, security, all the little things that are required of Alameda school facilities are negotiable if not directly part of school housing costs. I think the goal of Prop #39 was to facilitate win-win agreements. Of course you can only lead a horse to water…
This information was dated 2003. Although I can’t personally vouch for its accuracy, the rest of this post comes from the site linked in post #24 - I’ve shortened the explanation to two pages, I hope you find this helpful.
-D. Kirwin
How to Calculate Proposition 39 Facilities Fees
Though Proposition 39 requires school district to provide facilities to charter schools, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and Proposition 39 permits school districts to charge charter schools for a pro-rata share of some district facilities costs that the district pays from unrestricted funding sources.
The apparent intent of this provision is to require charter schools to contribute toward
facilities costs from their general-purpose funding sources to the same extent as school
districts. In practice cost estimates vary widely, from less than $1/square foot per year to over $3/square foot per year
A Simple Equation?
On its face, this seems relatively simple. School districts providing facilities under the term of Proposition 39 should simply calculate their facilities costs paid from their unrestricted general funds, divide this figure by total district facilities square footage, and multiply the result by the square footage provided to the charter school:
Total District Facilities Costs Paid from Unrestricted General Fund
Total District Facilities Square Footage
x Charter Square Footage = Fee
In practice, however, calculating the fee is not so simple.
For fee calculation purposes, schools that share facilities with common areas (e.g., libraries, gyms, auditoriums, etc.) are supposed to split the square footage of the common space on a pro-rata basis, according to the relative proportion of space reserved for the exclusive use of the charter school and other occupants.
Most of the difficulty in calculating an appropriate fee, however, relates to calculating the
total district costs for facilities paid from the district’s unrestricted general fund revenues (the numerator in the above equation).
The regulations governing Proposition 39 provide some additional guidance, but leave many other questions to be resolved. They define “facilities costs” as “those costs associated with facilities acquisition and construction and facilities rents and leases. In addition, according to the regulations, “facilities costs also includes the contribution from unrestricted general fund revenues to the school district deferred maintenance fund (see description of this below), costs from unrestricted general fund revenues for projects eligible for funding but not funded from the deferred maintenance fund, and costs from unrestricted general fund revenue for replacement of furnishings and equipment according to school district schedules and practices.”
General Practice Tips
School districts and charter schools that intend to follow these regulations should consider the following issues when calculating the charter facilities fee:
The analysis should focus on the district’s general fund. This is one of several funds
that districts maintain and it contains the vast majority of the district’s operating
revenues and expenses.
Following typical landlord-tenant practice, the regulations governing Proposition 39 generally call for charter schools to assume responsibility for “ongoing operations and maintenance of facilities and furnishings and equipment.”
Thus it appears that the intent is that charter schools assume responsibility for those facilities maintenance items that a district would normally perform on a regular (annual or more frequent) basis and that districts should assume responsibility for those items that are performed less frequently. If so, the calculation of the costs that should be shared by the charter school should be based on the district’s expenses for “deferred maintenance” paid with unrestricted general fund revenues. This will likely include all unrestricted general fund matching monies paid by the district from the general fund. Charter schools and facilities providing districts may need to engage in some fine-grained analysis to decide which expenditures appropriately belong in the numerator of the “simple” equation illustrated above, including;
o Facilities acquisition
o Facilities rents, leases
o Debt service on facilities
o Deferred maintenance
o Unrestricted general fund contribution to deferred maintenance fund
o Other deferred maintenance expenses
o Replacement of furnishings and equipment
The regulations governing Prop 39 call for charter schools and districts to enter into a use agreement. The agreement is supposed to address space allocation, cost, liability, and other matters. The regulations also state that the school and district “may negotiate separate agreements and/or reimbursement arrangements for specific services not considered part of facilities costs . . . such services may include, but are not limited to, the use of additional space and operations, maintenance, and security services.” Presumably these might also include utilities, grounds keeping, janitorial, etc.
Comment by David Kirwin — April 25, 2008 @ 12:08 am
The point I was trying to make in #25 and #28 is just that one of the negative financial impacts charters can have on a district is (broadly) the same negative financial impact that any decline in enrollment tends to have. I also tried to acknowledge that, overall, one might conclude that as a matter of policy this negative impact and others are outweighed by the perceived benefits that would follow from the charter. At least in the context of the budget crisis of 2008, I don’t agree with that view. But I understand that others might.
The specific point I was trying to make in response to comment #16 is that when there is declining enrollment, the costs of running a school tend to remain relatively constant while the revenues tend to drop comparatively more quickly so that financial harm to the district results.
The “Pulleez..” comment in #30 seems to suggest a disagreement with the proposition that, other things being equal, declining enrollment tends to cause financial harm to school districts.
Declining enrollment tends to cause financial harm to school districts, doesn’t it?
Comment by Rob Siltanen — April 25, 2008 @ 6:41 am
The difference between being asleep at the wheel (AUSD) and competency:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/25/BAV010BE0E.DTL
Comment by Roberto — April 25, 2008 @ 7:04 am
Being bailed out by the City and County of San Francisco’s Rainy Day fund (separate from the San Francisco Unified School District) is competency?
That’s akin to saying that if the City of Alameda bailed out AUSD it would be competency.
The Rainy Day Fund was not proposed by the school district, but rather San Francisco Board of Supervisor member Tom Ammiano.
Besides did you happen to read the entire article which said,
I’m not sure how these two situations are at all comparable. I suppose every other school district across the state facing similar cuts to their budget like AUSD is simply incompetent as well if they don’t have a City/County rainy day fund to bail them out of a portion of their budget deficiency.
Comment by Lauren Do — April 25, 2008 @ 7:15 am
Lauren is correct here… but I think Roberto is correct in a more far-reaching way. This is playing out all over the country: everyone planned for constant growth and ever-increasing home values. Conventional wisdom is turning out to be wrong.
AUSD was smart to move quickly on their parcel tax initiative, because the tax increases will most likely keep piling on.
Comment by Jack B — April 25, 2008 @ 9:24 am
#33 “Declining enrollment tends to cause financial harm to school districts, doesn’t it?”
No Rob, I do not agree with this statement. Are smaller school districts in worse economic shape as a matter of course? I don’t think so. A declining enrollment means change, and AUSD and the BOE must be able to change as enrollment changes just as they have had to change as legislation changes.
BTW
What have you heard about the CA republican plan to fund ‘08-’09 education to prop 98 levels? - I am sure there is a trade-off but I have not heard the whole plan yet.
Jack B - I disagree with your assertion that ‘conventional wisdom’ allowed everyone to plan for constant growth and ever-increasing home values. Only morons and scammers encourage the belief in never-ending pyramid schemes. Over-valuation has never been a permanent foundation for economic growth.
Comment by David Kirwin — April 25, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
# 17
Mike, your comment about the school district, (AUSD) “…has to do what every business does…”, made me realize that I’m not sure what business the school district is in, who its customers are or what the product of the business is?
The most obvious answer is, business = teaching, customers = students, product = education. The investors in this business enterprise are the property owners (and to a lesser degree all tax payers) of the city. Sounds reasonable, however, the more I read the more the obvious answer becomes murky and a clearer picture of the school as an enterprise needs to be clarified. Mike, since you are on the board of directors would you please clarify, in layman terms, what the business is you’re directing?
This is not a trick question, I have an open mind so I honestly would like a clear succinct answer.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 25, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
The school district is in “the business” of providing educational instruction to children using taxpayer monies. Our customers are the parents of the children until such time as the child can decide what educational system works for them. As for a “product” I would suggest we provide a “service” with the ultimate outcome that each child has been afforded an opportunity to receive an education that assists them in attaining their potential.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 26, 2008 @ 8:41 am
Another note: what is “education”? That is defined by each state when they established content standards for each subject to taught.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/index.asp
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 26, 2008 @ 8:49 am
Thanks for your response, Mike. For any business to be successful it must be perceived by its investors to be able and apt. Thus, I had come to believe the true business of AUSD is Public Relations all else is ancillary.
And no wonder it’s difficult to obtain operating capital for this business. Aren’t a good portion of the customers (under your definition) exempt from paying for the service? I would have argued the customers of the service must be property owners of the city. They are the primary investors and are told time and time again how paying more for the service will result in an ever increasing value of their investment. Which is an easy argument to make until the economy goes sour.
I think it would behoove the business to expand its paying customer base.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 26, 2008 @ 9:53 am
Jack,
Perhaps it might but you know very well the legal bars & limitations to this, including, but not limited to, the P13 welfare that you enjoy courtesy of of AUSD customers.
Comment by dave — April 26, 2008 @ 10:07 am
of *other* AUSD customers
Comment by dave — April 26, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Thanks again, doubly, dave, I forgot I’m on ausd welfare. Keep it coming.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 26, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
The school district provides a “service” of education as defined by the State content standards.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/index.asp
Since taxpayers at the State level pay for over 90% of the operating budget of a typical school districts, they are the “investors”.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 26, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
School districts provide a “service” called education. Each state defines by establishing content standards for the subject material to be delivered.
Since a typical school district receives 90% of its operating budget from State tax revenues, the “investors” everyone in California who pays a tax including sales tax, property tax, income tax or business tax.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 26, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
According to AUSD’s CFO, each year we need to submit a 3yr budget plan. I have not heard that is going to change, Therefore, it follows that in 2010 we will have to submit a 3-year budget to the COE – How will we do that with all the parcel taxes ending in 2012?
No one seems to want to answer that question, but it should have been a primary concern to the authors of Measure “H”.
By the way - WHO WERE THE AUTHORS OF MEASURE H?
Comment by David Kirwin — April 26, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
School districts submit three year budgets. Those school districts with parcel taxes have to pass another parcel tax or stop the funding the programs that the parcel taxes are paying for.
The School District is the author of a parcel tax measure and the School Board approves the language.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 27, 2008 @ 5:58 am
40 Jack,
I always find these business analogies inappropriate.
Not that being a government run entity is license for waste or to be poorly run, but I don’t see public institutions as precisely equal to any other “business” concern. We would like the level of education achieved in public programs to be “competitive” in regard to the student’s ability to compete in the job market, but I don’t think our schools and universities should be thought of as Costco and Wallmart competing for profit. Even in the latter there are ways of going about making a profit. Wallmart has always made a point of exploiting employees while Costco has an entirely different approach, including a reasonable cap on it’s CEO salary. A school can have a balanced budget and poor education or an excellent education and have budget problems. “Success” is relative to the objective.
Comment by Mark I — April 27, 2008 @ 9:39 am
# 47
Mark I, if you find the business/school analogy inappropriate, your quarrel is with Mike McMahon not me (see his # 17, this thread). However, it’s interesting that in order to describe the difference between a good education and not-so-good education, you draw a business analogy.
One rather insignificant point. In drawing that analogy, you call Costco’s cap on CEO salaries “reasonable”. Don’t you think CEO salary is “relative to the objective”? In this case, whatever the board of directors determines is “relative” and whatever the “objective” of the business is (most times, shareholder profit).
I tend to agree with you that the school/business analogy doesn’t work well. My problem with it is I cannot determine who the customers are. The school/business model, in my mind, doesn’t work having the student’s parents as the customer (as stated in Mike’s # 39). Nor does it work well having the property owners as customers/investors (in my # 40).
Aside from individual students (hopefully), the only beneficiary of the education enterprise is the federal government’s pursuit of dominance in global competition. Thus, in my view, local control or not, education should be primarily a federally funded enterprise.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 27, 2008 @ 10:24 am
As the economic crisis deepens, AUSD is going to have to live with much smaller budgets. Major rethinking and restructuring of public education will be necessary. The future is going to be much different than the past.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/27/MNUJ109A76.DTL&hw=recession&sn=007&sc=374
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/business/27spend.html?th&emc=th
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — April 27, 2008 @ 11:51 am
Jack once in a while I just take a person’s point in stead of finding a way to re-split hairs. It’s not all that interesting I used a business analogy to make my point about yours being inappropriate, it’s simple logic.
Comment by Mark I — April 27, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
Read carefully Mark I. The school/business analogy was not mine.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 27, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Read carefully Mark I. The school/business analogy was not mine.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 27, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
According to AUSD’s CFO, each year we need to submit a 3yr budget plan. I have not heard that is going to change, Therefore, it follows that in 2010 we will have to submit a 3-year budget to the COE – How will we do that with all the parcel taxes ending in 2012?
No one seems to want to answer that question, but it should have been a primary concern to the authors of Measure “H”.
By the way - WHO WERE THE AUTHORS OF MEASURE H?
Comment by David Kirwin — April 26, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
School districts submit three year budgets. Those school districts with parcel taxes have to pass another parcel tax or stop the funding the programs that the parcel taxes are paying for.
The School District is the author of a parcel tax measure and the School Board approves the language.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 27, 2008 @ 5:58 am
Mike-It is never too early for integrity. Could you state honestly who the authors of Alameda’s Measure “H” was?1. According to AUSD’s CFO, each year we need to submit a 3yr budget plan. I have not heard that is going to change, Therefore, it follows that in 2010 we will have to submit a 3-year budget to the COE – How will we do that with all the parcel taxes ending in 2012?
No one seems to want to answer that question, but it should have been a primary concern to the authors of Measure “H”.
By the way - WHO WERE THE AUTHORS OF MEASURE H?
Comment by David Kirwin — April 26, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
2.
School districts submit three year budgets. Those school districts with parcel taxes have to pass another parcel tax or stop the funding the programs that the parcel taxes are paying for.
The School District is the author of a parcel tax measure and the School Board approves the language.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 27, 2008 @ 5:58 am
Mike – it is never too early for integrity – Would you please state honestly who the authors of Alameda’s Measure “H” were? Please don’t hid behind “the School District.”
Comment by David Kirwin — April 28, 2008 @ 12:41 am
The Superintendent used the same process to develop the language for the parcel tax measure as she used for the budget reduction recommendations. Given the compressed time frames we are talking about, the staff and Superintendent did an excellent job since this was the first time they have had to deal with developing a parcel tax measure for the ballot.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 28, 2008 @ 4:25 am
Mike - what was the process and who did she use? Or who used her?
Please don’t say the school district staff authored this Measure Hidea.
Comment by David Kirwin — April 28, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
The Superintendent has created a number of formal communcations groups including a Superintendent Council and a community Sounding Board beyond the normal feedback she receives from parents, PTA Council, community groups, and business groups. When she and her staff develop material for presentation to the Board, she can use any or all of the groups mentioned above.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 29, 2008 @ 5:42 am
Mike, why are you avoiding the question of who wrote MH?
Comment by Dave Kirwin — April 29, 2008 @ 6:25 am
As long as the board publicly voted on the language, does it matter who held the quill?
Comment by dave — April 29, 2008 @ 7:49 am
UNCLE!
I have not named the authors of Measure H because I do not know who they are. If that makes me a poor elected official, so be it.
The voters can decide in 2010 if I decide to run for reelection.
Comment by Mike McMahon — April 29, 2008 @ 10:51 am
dave, it matters a lot if you are one to wear aluminum hats and fear the black helicopters coming, otherwise, it doesn’t matter at all.
Comment by notadave — April 29, 2008 @ 11:03 am