BURKEonBOARD

(Sept. 30, 2008) – We’re learning more and more about the bond sale the school board is planning and the tax increase that will go along with it.

And what we’re learning doesn’t necessarily square with what we’ve heard at recent school board meetings.

First, you need to know what the bond sale is for.

There are lots of details about the proposed bond sale that are helpful to know and we’ve written several times about it since the board started talking about it only earlier this month. You can get caught up by reading Another School District Tax?, Lookout! Tax Increase Ahead! and School Board’s Open Door Policy.

Bottom line, the board plans to sell up to $12.1 million in bonds (continue reading…)

(Sept. 27, 2008) – I love contests, so we’re going to have one. It’s real simple.

Answer this question in 200 words or less:
What does this classic 1973 National Lampoon magazine cover have in common with the argument for higher school taxes?

Send your entries via email to contest@burke4board.com. The decision of our judge (that’s me) is final. Points will be awarded for wit, humor and being right. The winner will have his/her winning entry posted here on the web site. Heck, we might print a bunch of them. Let me know if you don’t want your name published.

The entry deadline is . . . flexible.

(Sept. 27, 2008) – On a lot of things, I ain’t necessarily the smartest bear in the woods. But you can teach me.

One of the issues I’ve come across running for school board is called grouping. Turns out it’s quite the controversial subject among educators. I mentioned grouping in passing in an earlier posting and someone wrote to ask what I knew about it and my opinion of it. I thought I’d share that response with you. (continue reading…)

(Sept. 26, 2008) – Don’t tell me you were surprised that the school board gave its superintendent a six star rating at Bradley Meeks annual job performance evaluation (Meeks meets job criteria -  Thisweek Farmington-Lakeville) last week. The board explained its findings at Monday’s board meeting. It was an embarrassing love fest.

“This is not just a rubber stamp,” Board Member Tim Weyandt said as Meeks handed Weyandt a rubber stamp.

I made up that last part about Meeks handing Weyandt a rubber stamp. But you might be forgiven if you thought it were true. (continue reading…)

(Sept. 25, 2008) – It seems that I can scarcely touch finger to keyboard without annoying someone.

The emails usually start like this. “I basically agree with you, but…”

Here’s one that came today. It dispensed with the “I agree” part and got straight to the “but…”

To be honest, the tone of your campaign is very concerning to me.  I feel that the messages (which in fact I do agree with on some points) are getting lost within the almost ’stalker-like’ behavior and comments that you share within your blogs and when interviewed.  I fear that you are ‘turning off’ a number of voters with this kind of tone.

However, nonetheless as I understand your tone is purposeful to get people’s attention (whatever), my bigger question is that your blog seems to put out a lot of your commentary without any information to back it up.  For example, today’s blog titled “One Job, Three Bosses” seems to be based on the fact that you merely looked at a staff directory.  Beyond that, I’m not sure you actually talked to anyone about exactly what the department, or the “three bosses” are responsible for.  So I feel it’s another example of spreading what I would call unfair accusations about the school system without going throught he lengths to get yourself better informed.  I mean, a 10 year old can look at a staff directly and come up with your assumption – why not reach out to further understand the situation.  If you have already, then I apologize.  But between you & I, I don’t think you’ve really reached out to Dr. Weymouth to clarify, now have you?

You may be getting a lot of attention by your tone, by not being ‘Minnesota nice’, and by challenging people at every chance you get, but at the end of the day, is it all smoke & mirrors?  Is that all there is to you?  I’d like to see more substance to your campaign than finger-pointing and ‘attention-seeking’.  What will YOU DO to improve Farmington schools?  How will YOU bring us to the next level in our testing scores?  How do YOU plan to bring greater fiscal responsibility to the district?  Other than making your priority about pointing out the mistakes of the previous board, I’m not sure how that helps us move FORWARD, which is what I personally am looking for in a candidate.  As a voter, I do my own homework before I make decisions & accusations.  And for you as a candidate, I would expect nothing less.

This is what I wote back:

Fair questions all.

My fundamental concern is academic achievement which I think most of us can agree is wanting in the Farmington school district. I have said many times, I am not an educator and not an expert or even particularly knowledgeable today about curriculum matters. That is why we hire people to do these things for the district, starting with the superintendent and the people whom he chooses to work with him.

The role of the school board member, I believe, is to set policy and then provide oversight of the superintendent and how he manages his staff implementing those policies.

It is my belief that the district, administration and board, have made bad financial and planning decisions and have failed to produce acceptable academic achievement results. If the superintendent fails to produce the desired results, it is the board’s responsibility to hold the superintendent accountable. In our district’s case, not only is the board failing to hold the superintendent accountable, it thinks he’s doing a good job, as witnessed by the glowing evaluation they gave him on which they reported at last Monday night’s board meeting.

So, if the district administration and board say that all is well when most of us can see it is not, then we must start by pointing out the problems so we can create the foundation of agreement that there is need for change. It is near impossible to solve a problem without some agreement that there is a problem, what it is and what its cause is.

In any political campaign in which a challenger runs against an incumbent, the election is necessarily a referendum on the status quo. So the issues are the performance and decisions of the incumbent (or in this case the school board and administration). Hence, I have spent a great deal of time pointing out what I consider to be bad decisions and the failings of the school board and administration. Some people will agree with me. Some won’t. Some will prefer not to be confronted with this discordance.

Now, what will I do?

It is simply impossible to say beyond the first several weeks. It seems rather Pollyannish to simply say I will raise test scores or cut spending

I think there is a big need for greater transparency in every aspect of school district operations. I think there is great deal about the district’s financial situation that is hidden from view. I think there is much to be learned about the state of academic instruction in this district, not only from a curriculum standpoint, but from how the curriculum has been managed. I think that there are foundational issues we need to deal with on how we group (or don’t group) and instruct students based on ability. I believe there are building-to-building issues of discipline in how curriculum is delivered.

These are things I believe but don’t have detailed knowledge of because our school district doesn’t discuss these issues in public.

I expect that the first three months of next year will be a period of discovery if we elect three new board members in the next election. At that point, when the new board members and the public, who will have a new opportunity to understand the state of their school district, are better informed about our challenges, we can start making decisions together. I don’t know what those decisions will be now and I won’t pretend I do.

One thing we do know. Our district, to use the politically correct language, is financially challenged. We have the highest school taxes and near the lowest per pupil spending in the county. Board members are quick to point out that the largest part of the school property tax go to finance recent school construction to accommodate enrollment growth. That doesn’t change the fact that high property taxes are still a burden, not only on our residents, but on efforts to create economic development. For just as certain as you and I shop for the lowest priced gas station, commercial and industrial developers shop for lower taxed land on which to develop. High taxes are an impediment to development, especially when lower taxed land is on our doorstep. And we need commercial and industrial  development to shift some of the tax burden off homeowners who carry the load disproportionately in our district compared to others.

Is that a promise not to raise taxes or vote to place another operating levy on the ballot? No. I won’t make a promise I’m not certain I can keep. But I can tell you it will take extraordinary circumstances for me to support a tax increase or even a ballot measure to allow a tax increase.

A long winded answer to your questions which I suspect are still not answered to you satisfaction.

I’m reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies, The Hunt for Red October, which I watched again over the weekend. At the end, Sean Connery’s character, the Soviet sub commander, Captain Ramius, says to Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin), “A little revolution, now and then, is a healthy thing, don’t you think?”

Things need shaking up. I don’t think we can do a worse job than what’s being done now. And if, somehow, we do, there’s another election in two years. I am perfectly willing to be held to the same standards I hold others. I expect to be criticized, in fact I look forward to having my votes and statements and ideas challenged. What better way to hone one’s positions than in the crucible of public debate held in the public square. And, then, if found wanting, be forced to amend or give it up.

I know that only when I sit alone am I ever likely to be the smartest person in the room. My kids prove that to me most days. I know I have a lot to learn and I expect to put a lot of time into learning and listening and asking questions (in public). And even if I end up being the sixth smartest person on a six member school board, I think that I can still be an asset and an ally to our kids and our teachers and our community.

As I reread the email to me and my reply, I notice that I didn’t answer one straight forward question. “I don’t think you’ve really reached out to Dr. Weymouth to clarify, now have you?” my correspondent asks, wondering if I inquired about the top-heavy staffing in the Teaching and Learning Department before I wrote of it. I didn’t. And the district has never tried to tried to explain what seems to me plainly an irrational staffing situation.

But I will ask Dr. Weymouth about it. And I will report back here with her response.

(Sept. 25, 2008) – Everyone one has heard those stories about the highway department road crew with three supervisors watching one worker fill a pothole.

It appears we may have a real life example of that right here in the Farmington School District. In yet another situation that defies explanation, we may actually have what amounts to three bosses running what used to be called the Curriculum Office and is now called the Department of Teaching and Learning. (continue reading…)

(Sept. 24, 2008) – Monday night this week, the Farmington School Board did as predicted and voted to sell $12.1 million in bonds to finance future health insurance premiums for district retirees going out 40 years. This will mean a property tax increase for all property owners in the school district. Higher taxes for the district that already pays the highest school taxes in Dakota county.

The vote was 4-1 with Ann Manthey the lone dissenter and board member John Kampf absent because of illness.

Board members voting for the bond sale and tax increase said their vote “left the door open” for them to consider new information in the next three months. They were quick to point out that the Monday night vote was not the last word on the matter and that things could change before the end of the year when the tax levy is set in stone.

Wanna bet? (continue reading…)

(Sept. 23, 2008) – Back on September 7, I wrote an piece (Manthey Gets More Shabby Treatment; Meeks to get a Pass) about how the school board had scheduled their annual evaluation of superintendent Brad Meeks at a time that Manthey could not attend.

That information came from Manthey speaking at a public meeting. She said she had advised the rest of the board she couldn’t make that meeting and she expressed her frustration at the apparent snub. After the piece about that situation appeared here, the evaluation meeting was rescheduled to accommodate Manthey.

Manthey was latter told by board chair Julie McKnight that she and other board members were unaware that Manthey was unavailable at the initial meeting time and that the email Manthey had sent the board had been missed by all. Manthey accepted that explanation and at Monday night’s board meeting apologized to the board for airing her frustrations publicly.

I apologize to Ann Manthey for having put her in that difficult position with her fellow board members by reporting on the situation based on her comments.

I apologize to board chair Julie McKnight and the rest of the board for drawing the conclusions I drew in my September 7 piece about the scheduling of the Meeks evaluation.

(Sept. 21, 2008) – You should probably consider going to the Farmington School Board meeting tomorrow (Monday, Sept. 22) night. There’s a good chance the board will vote to increase your property taxes then.

Here’s why.

Monday night is the board’s deadline to vote on next year’s property tax levy that must then be reported to the county auditor. The board is scheduled to take up a possible bond sale to finance future district retiree health insurance benefits. (It’s all explained here.)

The important thing to know is that the bond sale and resulting tax increase is completely unneeded to meet the district’s obligations.

Up until now, the district has funded it obligation to pay the premiums for retiree health insurance on a pay-as-you-go basis from its general fund. It could continue to do that, if they wanted to. (continue reading…)

(Sept. 21, 2008) – A front page story in today’s (Sunday, Sept. 21, 2008) Pioneer Press shines the light on a problem we know only too well here in Farmington—school superintendent contracts designed to hide the real cost of contracts school boards give superintendents. The story is also online.

A Pioneer Press analysis of 26 east metro districts finds superintendent salaries — often augmented with extra benefits — are growing faster than teacher pay under contracts that are difficult for the average taxpayer to understand. But officials say the incentive packages are necessary to entice district heads to stick around.

Five years ago, the Minnesota state auditor’s office told some school boards they were too generous with superintendents’ severance packages, sick leave and vacation pay, making it hard for taxpayers to determine just how much superintendents were getting paid.

While some school districts have taken heed, others have not. Read the full story online.