This is an updated version of a proposal that the Cafe made in March 2006. Admin
The Cafe proposes that a committee of individuals be created for the purpose of carrying out an independent and objective review of Woodstock’s education budget.
This committee, composed of three to ten members, should be authorized by the Board of Education (BOE) to carry out its mission independently of the BOE with the exception of the BOE’s cooperation in exchanging information and providing clarifications as needed by the committee.
Nominations for appointment to this committee should be posted publicly on the Internet and in local newspapers as these nominations should be known to the Town citizenry.
It should be stipulated that nominees to the committee meet the following criteria:
(1) committee nominees and members should have no prior role with the BOE, the Academy, or the Woodstock school system;
(2) individuals who have conflicts of interest (lawsuits, vendors, contractors, etc) with the school system are disqualified as committee nominees and members;
(3) committee nominees and members should not have held Town office or appointment to any municipal committee or commission or be a member of any political party town committee;
(4) committee nominees and members should have some form of higher education or sustained experience in a profession; and
(5) no committee nominee or member should have a child entering into or currently within the Woodstock school system.
The committee members will be selected by the BOE after screening nominees for their experience and expertise.
The mandate of this committee will be as follows: (1) To complete a line-by-line review of current and proposed BOE budgets to determine appropriateness of all expenditures; and (2) provide an independent review of reasonable unmet needs of the school system. In completion of its mission, this committee will produce a written report annually to be published in a timely fashion on the Internet and in local newspapers.
This proposal is open for discussion.
1. This committee, composed of three to ten members, should be authorized by the Board of Education (BOE) to carry out its mission independently of the BOE with the exception of the BOE’s cooperation in exchanging information and providing clarifications as needed by the committee. – A committee that would be subject to the dictates of the BOE. A committee that could be disbanded at any time at the whim of the BOE. No thank you.
2. Your criteria for eligible nominees – Again, we’d have to go to Kalamazoo to find eligible nominees. Unrealistic.
3. The committee members will be selected by the BOE after screening nominees for their experience and expertise. – Again, subject to the whims and preferences of the BOE. Sounds a lot like jury selection.
4. To complete a line-by-line review of current and proposed BOE budgets to determine appropriateness of all expenditures – Review line items? Limited scope. Kind of sounds like the MFATF. MFATF committee did not perform an audit of finances and best practices. It was not their charge.
5. Provide an independent review of reasonable unmet needs of the school system – Small piece of the big picture.
If such an advisory committee is formed, it should be independent of the BOE. It should, however, receive full cooperation of the BOE and administration.
Professionalism, respect, and common courtesy should be readily apparent from both.
This is bullshit– all of it. Fusco, Schultze all of this. We spend nothing. Our kids have a good school system. Attend BOE meetings and get involved. Let go of the past and dead policies that you simply disagreed with and move on. A board to oversee a board? Come on!
I’m about to say something that I already know will be wildly unpopular here and I can already hear Snuffy growling, but…
When you look at Ernest Wetzel and Reality Check’s comments in the other two threads, they raise a point that I think we might all do well to consider. If such a committee as this one actually is formed, will it’s findings really have any credibility if it excludes people from CPS and/or WA proponents? Will we really be putting any unresolved questions and issues to rest once and for all this way? Or will this just be seen as the BOE’s committee of henchmen? I think if a committee were formed that was comprised of a combination of people who have an axe to grind plus those who do not and the findings come out to show no corruption on the BOE’s part, then the findings couldn’t be denied. That would go a long way, I would hope, toward easing the attacks on the BOE. I think that if the BOE gets to choose the committee members, then the committee will be dead in the water before they have their first meeting because they will be campaigned against as another layer of a BOE cover-up of some kind.
We have had countless discussions here in the past about, “why should the BOE have to answer frivolous charges?”. If this committee is put together carefully with some BOE opponents on it, then the BOE will not have to answer any charges, yet transparency will be provided for all that will not be able to be disputed. Again, definitely NOT in the sense of a anti-BOE witch hunt. It should be done objectively and in the spirit of removing the charges of waste, fraud, and abuse from being used against K-8. Think about it. What if a couple of CPS members do serve on this committee and they go through a thorough audit and it turns out there’s no fraud and abuse? What will the argument be after the air is cleared? Seems to me, there won’t be one anymore. Isn’t that the ultimate goal of this proposed committee in the first place?
There. I said it. Now just give me a minute to put on my bullet-proof vest before sending responses, please. Thanks!
Newc, Do you honestly think these people can be objective? They’ve already proved they can’t. When I was in research, I published a lot of papers. In some cases we actually had the ability to recommend peer scientists to review them. We always took this opportunity to choose reputable, highly respected scientists who we did not know because we knew that we would get the most objective and intelligent review regardless of whether the paper was accepted or not. We would also learn a new perspective from someone we respected. This will not happen in Woodstock if people with political agendas and an ax to grind contaminate the review process. Wetzel and Reality Check are incapable of looking at anything objectively. They’ve proven this here over and over again. By contrast, you would be a good candidate if you didn’t have a kid in the system.
Alan Walker and Jeff Gordon would be good candidates if they hadn’t been elected. The most instructive review will come from objective intelligent people, and I’m sure there are many in Woodstock and in the surrounding towns.
Newcomer, you are afool. Wetzel and Schultze USE people like you to give credibility to their own twisted reasons for what they do, and Schultze especially is hiding behind sealed files.Powers is being used as well, although he seems to be more like a clone these days and just as bad. Please get a grip. Other than getting very little in funding, the school system needs no help from these people within their suggested forum. I have a real problem with the effects of Schultze and Wetzel: good people avoid the BOE meetings and are unwilling to run because of this harrassment. And this has included myself.
I see your point, of course. I was just thinking that by having neutral, uninvolved, and objective people on the same committee, that it would provide some sort of check and balance system so the results couldn’t be disputed as more pro K-8/pro BOE bias.
I don’t meet any of the above criteria for this committee since I have 3 kids in the system, none of them at WA. And now I’m also on a town sub-committee of sorts for PZC with the Telecommunications Task Force.
But I still think this idea of yours has possiblities and I’m glad to have the opportunity to be one voice among many to try to help hash it out.
Newc, You’re still a good model. All that I ask for is OBJECTIVITY in big letters.
Pointless,
Which is why if one of them is involved in an audit review committee AND it turns out that their claims are unfounded, then what? Won’t that put an end to the accusations once and for all?
Newcomer, I apologize for calling you a fool. It was stupid and mean and desperate. I actually think that people like YOu should run for BOE or even BOF, but you won’t. You won’t because you have kids and need to be with them and with these positions come mega aggravation and “negativity”, especially thanks to our perverted and so-called “watch dog group”. And this is exactly what Schultze and Wetzel are counting on.
Pointless,
No need to apologize, but thank you for doing so. However, I’ve been called worse and I can take it just fine. I do agree that elected office is not in the near future for me. Not just because I have young children, but also because I can tell based on my exchanges with folks here and about town that I still have a lot to learn. It has nothing to do with intimidation though. If I latch on to a cause, I’m not afraid to fight for it (aka cell towers). Kids have a way of growing up and even though mine still have a long way to go, you never know what the future holds.
John,
Thanks for the validation. Nice.
RC, Can you be objective given all of the attacks on the school board both here and at BOE meetings? I don’t think so.
John,
On a positive note, I think it commendable that RC makes an effort to explain her stands and comes to the Cafe to do so. I can’t speak for RC, but I think he/she respects the cafe and its audience enough that at the very least they should respect and value the balance and perspective that he/she offers. While I suspect that RC may become frustrated, he/she never calls anybody derogatory names or is malicious. I’ve been to other blogs and have to say that, overall, people here are very polite, heartfelt, and intelligent. Sure we squabble and manipulate as is such with blogs, but beneath it all I sense a sincerity that is unique and forthcoming. I dub this “the Cafe difference!” Keeps me and others coming back. Good job Admin.!
John,
You see that’s the difference between you and me. I have never attacked you.
I have asked questions. Plain and simple. Just because you don’t like my questions does not make me the enemy. That’s your own jaded perspective. Surprising, really, for a man of science.
You are under some misguided belief that you must somehow “protect” the BOE from anyone who questions it. It is a public agency in charge of public schools. It should not be taboo to question the BOE.
To be objective, you must detach from your personal feelings in order to actually see and hear what is before you in order to come to a conclusion based on fact.
YOU do not do that, John. With your barbs and your insults, you don’t even come close.
YOU question MY objectivity?
I have attempted (many times) to engage in discussion here. What can I say? I’m a glutton for punishment.
I haven’t surfed over to the Cafe in a long time. Family, work, my vegetable garden my 4-year old son and I try to grow things in, and many meetings at town hall have been keeping me busy. There’s been much discussed on this blog since I last looked.
JOHN, THANK YOU FOR THE KIND WORDS ABOUT MY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE MFATF. YOUR INVOLVEMENT AT THE FIRST MEETING WAS HELPFUL AND BECKI’S HELP THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COURSE OF THE MFATF WAS HELPFUL AS WELL. EVERYONE ON THE MFATF DID THEIR PART – I APPRECIATE THAT. I enjoyed working with you both, even if for just a meeting with you John. It was not our task, as worked out by us as a group, to review line item by line item the general town and BOE budgets, since the feeling was that the elected officials in town were “hired” by the people to do that. Also, it would have probably been seen by the BOE as the MFATF taking over some of their responsibilities without their asking us to do so. Nevertheless, the MFATF did spend considerable time reviewing through the budgets to better understand how they’re made up, how they’re presented to the public, and how they’ve changed from year to year.
At a couple of MFATF meetings, … (see Jeff’s new article. Admin).
RC – There is nothing wrong with your questions.
John,
I’d call that progress.
I’m still trying to figure out the scope and basis for creation of a BOE oversight committee.
BOE’s in our state get their authority from state statutes. Jeff Gordon raises a point that I’ve been thinking as well. Who actually creates/appoints/oversees any committee that oversees the BOE?
And a point I’ve made before on the cafe – why is it that people elected to the Woodstock BOE are automatically assumed to be incapable of doing the job they were elected to do?
We have an elected board that is charged with establishing policies and creating/managing a budget. They are under constant scrutiny (fair enough, I suppose – they ran for office) and have been accused of wasting millions of dollars per year. All of the expenditures are public record already. If someone wants to form a committee to do what folks are elected to do already, let them.
Good luck getting a group of people who have never been involved in local politics, are not currently involved in education, and do not have an axe to grind, that are willing to be on such a committee.
I’m willing to be convinced otherwise here. Maybe I’m just not seeing things clearly. But some folks involved in CPS have been attacking WPS for years. They have successfully kept prop. 46 on the books. That’s democracy. They have not ben able to control the BOE. That’s democracy as well.
I’ve not yet been convinced that any oversight committee, forensic committee, or whatever you would call it is necessary. It still seems like a witch hunt.
RC – I can see we don’t agree, but thanks for discussing ideas. I think that can make this site at least, well, a respectable place to hang out. I try (honestly) to discuss things logically and in an adult manner. That being said, your proposal (points 4 & 5 anyway) sounds kind of like the guidelines for a BOE
I am wondering what Dr. Gordon thinks of Reality Check’s original proposal that the task force include the entire education system, i.e., both the Academy and the K-8 system?
Jeff K.,
• “Who actually creates/appoints/oversees any committee that oversees the BOE?”
The people.
• “And a point I’ve made before on the cafe – why is it that people elected to the Woodstock BOE are automatically assumed to be incapable of doing the job they were elected to do?”
I’m not so sure that this “assumption” is true (by most people, anyway). The reality is that nothing much ever changes.
With 6 year terms and a 9 member board, a small (minority) opportunity is made available (for “change”) every 2 years. The status quo tends to remain.
The sad truth is that many good, free thinking individuals are unable or unwilling to commit to such a lengthy term and have no desire to be the minority membership with dissenting views which have no hope of ever really “meaning anything”.
• “Good luck getting a group of people who have never been involved in local politics, are not currently involved in education, and do not have an axe to grind, that are willing to be on such a committee.”
Agreed.
• “I’ve not yet been convinced that any oversight committee, forensic committee, or whatever you would call it is necessary. It still seems like a witch hunt.”
I am doing my best to relate my perception of the “necessity” (an end to the nastiness, turmoil). That is all that I can do, really, and just hope that it makes sense in the telling.
As before, I do not support a “witch hunt”.
Unfortunately, those who choose to believe that a probative, detailed inquiry is a “witch hunt” will likely not be persuaded otherwise. The attacks will continue and nothing will change. I find that immeasurably sad.
• “ your proposal (points 4 & 5 anyway) sounds kind of like the guidelines for a BOE”
Points 4 & 5 are not “mine”. I was simply responding to these points from the article.
Here is my point of view: A volunteer has only so much time that they can devote to a Board in any given week and still have a life and contribute to that life. If the BOE is constantly preoccupied most of the work week, putting out Schultze type fires, then they will be unable to adequately do their job for my children. Only so much stamina and focus to go around. people need to stop thinking, that Preston Schultze “must” be doing this for an objective reason. They need to start entertaining the thought that this man is extremely troubled.
Now there is a concept, Preston Schultze Preston Schultze is “Troubled”. Why is this so hard to swallow? Haven’t we all had the crazy neighbor or the not so nice family member? Oh I forgot, this our MONEY we are talking about. We are talking about our money that the school system DOESN’T GET MUCH OF in the first place and we want them to get even LESS. So lets insist that the blame is all on their inability to MANAGE what they get, so that we don’t ever question the parts of the budget pie that might be getting TOO MUCH. That makes perfect sense!
Susan is right. This is just another time-waster to aggravate volunteer board memebers on the BOE and make it an even LESS attractive position for future potential members. Between “Citizen Audit Committees”; inundation with invasive FOI requests; camera crews in the audience; angry mobs; who would ever want to serve on the BOE?
And I would like to see Reality Check address the question of who appoints this “audit committee”. She says “the citizens” but WHICH CITIZENS? This is how possees, lynch mobs and local KKK groups are organized – through self-selected “Citizen Committees”. I mean, does the democratic process mean anything to Reality Check?
Reality Check. You remind me of me! I think you have been fed a line, no multiple lines, of crap. Start asking the right questions and start asking the right people.
Oh I get it !
The old, let the fox run the hen house.
That will work…