See Kevin Ford’s summation of the “March 13 and March 27 BOE meetings”
There is a lot of interesting stuff in Kevin’s article including Rosendahl/Richardson’s blundering math, dealings with the Academy, and the BOE’s handling of Shultz’ ridiculous FOI complaints.
1. Budget – the BOE is submitting a budget to BOF of $15.7 million, representing a 4.7% increase over the current year budget of $15.0 million. The proposed 2008-09 budget represents the cost to only maintain current K-8 services, with no staffing or program improvements, and will be submitted along with a supplememt showing other items the BOE feels would allow them to meet their goals, but for which they are not requesting funding. The base “maintenance” budget is likely to face cuts based on the current calculation of the Proposition 46 cap. Further, the challenge to the current calculation of the Prop 46 cap by Dave Richardson, which according to Mr. Richardson has gained the endorsement of town attorney Robert DeCrecenzo, as publicized in this week’s Villager, may produce an even more severe negative impact on the town’s school budget. This while the Academy is off and running on the expansion of their athletic complex, increased technology purchases, additional academic programs, and expanded international staff junkets.
2. Steve Rosendahl – This BOE member, who ran on the Republican ticket with the published endorsements of former Democratic BOE member Christine Johnston Lessig alongside that of CPS President Preston Schultz, is quickly gaining steam. Rosendahl presented for inclusion in the BOE minutes a highly misleading budget “analysis” showing the Academy and K-8 budgets. The Academy’s Transportation and Special Education costs are not only EXCLUDED from the Academy’s budget, but they are INCLUDED as K-8 costs, grossly distorting the relative costs of the two systems. This distortion is so blatant as to represent a bald-faced lie.
3. Academy Contract – In addition to their longstanding demand that the BOE sign a contract granting the Academy unilateral authority over the tuition they are paid, the Academy has renewed their even more outrageous demand that they be reimbursed for any cost they (unilaterally, of course) deem to be an unreasonable cost of negotiations with BOE. In their language – “Woodstock Academy maintains the right to assess the WBOE for any cost determined to be associated with actions, either taken or not taken, by the WBOE that are determined to increase the cost of the educational process to the Academy beyond what is anticipated” This language is so outrageous as to resemble a directive from a monarch to a feudal peasant. It would be simply irresponsible for anyone to agree to such a term.
4. FOIA – CPS President Preston Shultz, with support from CPS representative to BOE Steve Rosendahl, continue their assault on the BOE. Amidst ongoing moralizing lectures delivered by Rosendahl to his fellow BOE members relative to their obligation to be “tranparent” (legal requirements to the contrary) Mr. Shultz has (not surprisingly) reneged on his agreement with BOE and his obligations under law to pay for copies of the documents he demanded, after reviewing them and concluding they did not support his conspiracy theories. The bill for the copies is being sent to Shultz via certified mail and other CPS-inspired FOIA document requests are being suspended until he pays. The FOIA Commission will support the BOE on this well-established point of law. Mr. Shultz’s second FOIA request, for attorney-client priveleged information, is also well protected by law. Mr. Shultz has already been scolded by the FOIA Commission for his misuse of their agency and I suspect they have had enough of this local crackpot. This man seems unable to interact with any public agency without alientating them!
Orson
I was pleasantly surprised on the comments rearding Prop 46 made by the selectmen and Hosmer. Kevin also mentioned that the BOE will be providing detailed budget charts ect. on their “Spotlight”. I think that is crucial. Orson, do you see any immediate solutions otherwise? How would you handle these issues in the short term?
Oh that’s easy.
I would allocate the Prop 46 budget reduction from Prop 46 proportionately to the K-8 system and the Academy. The Academy cannot refuse to accept Woodstock students and open its doors in the fall – it would be a violation of its nonprofit status under its charter which obligates it to provide education services to WOODSTOCK students (not other towns). The IRS would take this extremely seriously regardless of the pricing squabble. And any court would insure, as a critical public service, that the school accepted the kids – this is a completely phony threat on the part of the Academy. Then, since there is no case law precedent, the court would instruct the parties – two public agencies – to negotiate a settlement.
The BOE needs the guts to do it – not become hysterical as one member did when I suggested this.
Makes sense to me. I think it needs to come down to this. Once the Academy is affected by Prop 46, you may see some movement to either address Prop 46 or seek other measures to correct the town side budget and/or increase revenue in some other way. Thank you.