Wednesday, July 14, 2010

East Allen County Schools meeting (and what went wrong)

Last night the East Allen County (EACS) school board voted to pursue the option of letting voters increase their property taxes to maintain a status quo school system. That is what the mainstream media is reporting. There were many other events that took place that need to be told. I do want to say that I think some school realignment should take place. But that should take place with current facilities, not building new ones.

First, the board has instituted a time limit for members of the public to address the board. Three minutes. That’s it. When you hit the limit, they cut you off immediately. They did this to me last month. I was granted somebody else’s time when he chose not to speak. Last night they cut off the mayor of New Haven. A certain amount of respect for another elected official would have been in order, especially when the mayor granted a request from the board president to speak before the New Haven city council last month regarding the board’s options. The board president was not given limited speaking time by the mayor.

In a presentation by the bus director, multiple times referred to bus changes that would take place with closed schools – when they close, not if they close.

Another presentation centered on the proposed Capital Projects fund. Of significance was the carryover amount in the line item for future projects in excess of $4 million. That should include an amount of approximately $1 million the board raised from property taxes about 5 years ago to remodel at Highland Terrace. But that plan has since been abandoned. I have raised this issue nearly every year that that money should be returned to the taxpayers. Also within the CPF report was the option that EACS could use bonds to make up the difference to upgrade schools if insufficient funds came in through property taxes. In other words, in the opportunity to consolidate schools would be the time to really upgrade facilities. I think the board should physically review every upgrade in the plan which included, for example, new drinking fountains in one building. Are they really needed?? Now is the time for austerity.

Another point that I have repeatedly mentioned is the property that EACS owns in Leo-Cedarville. It should be sold! It is unnecessary for future facilities. It was brought up by another speaker last night.

At the start of each year (term), board members and staff must fill out potential conflict of interest forms. Board member Bill Hartman is the lead administrator of Blackhawk Christian School. I have no problem with him as an administrator. I have no problem with his Christian declaration. I do believe that his day job requires him to recruit new students to keep the school financially viable. How many of those students have come out of the EACS district?? A student that leaves EACS for Blackhawk takes the public funds away from the district. Is that meeting his fiduciary responsibility to the school district?

The board voted to allow the property taxpayers of the district to increase general operating funds. This should not be used just to balance the financial accounts as Chris Baker from the New Haven Chamber of Commerce said before the board. I think it fair to let the public decide to increase their taxes for the schools. I do, however, think there should be specific restrictions put on that increase: 1. All employee groups must agree not to pursue that money for salary increases. 2. Prior to implementation, use of the money MUST be identified. Again, as Mr. Baker said, I think the money should be used for advanced programs in the district.

There are many other points that probably need to be made, but I will finish with this one. After the bus director’s presentation, board member Terry Jo Lightfoot implied that the reason the southeast part of the school district faces consolidation is because so many students attend local parochial schools. She implied that closures are the fault of parochial students.

The board needs to change its approach to public input.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

America needs a leader

Recently on Facebook, I lamented about the need for a GOP presidential candidate for 2012 that offers more encouragement for individual liberty and entrepreneurship. I received several comments back that current domestic economic climate began under the previous president. Some of that is true. Medicare Part D is probably the biggest disappointment. But now, we see the rundown of the United States and the promotion of the third world. Most recently, the admission of the head of NASA that his primary role - as directed by the president - is to make the muslim world feel good about themselves. Forget about putting man in space outside of earth orbit, requiring increases in scientists, etc.

Following is an excerpt from President Reagan's first State of the Union speech in 1982. He makes no apologies for US economic supremacy. Young people may feel it is silly to invoke Reagan. I feel he belongs in the tier of Washington and Lincoln. When reading many of his speeches, they are inspiring.

To view the State of the Union in perspective, we must not ignore the rest of the world. There isn’t time tonight for a lengthy treatment of social or of foreign policy, I should say a subject I intend to address in detail in the near future. A few words, however, are in order on the progress we’ve made over the past year re-establishing respect for our nation around the globe and some of the challenges and goals that we will approach in the year ahead.

At Ottawa and Cancun, I met with leaders of the major industrial powers and developing nations
. Now some of those I met with were a little surprised I didn’t apologize for America’s wealth. Instead I spoke of the strength of the free marketplace system and how that system could help them realize their aspirations for economic development and political freedom.(my emphasis) I believe lasting friendships were made and the foundation was laid for future cooperation.

Compare the texts of the first SOTU speeches from Reagan and Obama and you will see 2 totally different philosophies. When you examine the application, you see the difference in the outcomes played out in our economies.

Reagan in 2012!!