Thursday, August 9, 2012

Supplemental Material for August 13, 2012 School Board Meeting

Here is the supplemental material for the upcoming School Board meeting. As always, I would appreciate your respectfully delivered feedback on any of these matters.

In particular, I'd like to know what you think about the proposed contract with the City of Hilliard, which provides for a Hilliard Police Officer to be stationed in each high school during the school day. For the 2012-2013 school year, this contract requires the School District to pay the City a total of $232,733, same as last year. For the following two school years, the contract amount would be based on whatever deal the police officers' union negotiates with the City of Hilliard.

There are several ways to look at this agreement:

  1. The City of Hilliard receives income tax revenue of $2 million dollars each year from the employees of Hilliard City Schools. The School District is the largest employer in the City of Hilliard, and the largest generator of income tax revenue. And of course, those income tax revenues to the City start with the property tax revenues collected from all the homeowners and businesses in the district. Why should we have to pay even more?
  2. On the other hand, since the mission of these officers is to protect and serve the people of the City of Hilliard, is it fair to ask the City to bear the full cost of posting officers in schools in which more than half the kids live outside the City of Hilliard?
  3. I asked a year ago whether these officers are even necessary. Our high schools are sizable buildings, and there's no way a single officer can observe what's going on at all times in every hallway and place to hide. Do they really make a difference, I asked? Each of the three high school building principals quickly replied that they very much appreciated having the officer in their building, not so much because they could patrol the hallways, but because they could very rapidly respond to situations, and keep things from getting out of control.
  4. In light of the several tragic shootings which have occurred in recent years, is a quarter-million dollars too much to spend if having a police officer on the campus can reduce the number of kids who might get hurt in such a situation?
What are your wishes?  Should I vote in favor of signing this contract?


  1. No, we don't need Police Officers in suburban schools, just as we don't need them stationed in libraries, parks, or Post Offices. If there are issues, the Police should be called.

    1. Aren't schools a unique venue in our a community - a place were hundreds and thousands of our most precious treasure - our children - are concentrated for most of the day?

    2. Only because the State mandates it and makes it incredibly difficult to homeschool.

      So, we have to send our kids to school, but then we have to pay more to protect them?



  2. A few thoughts...

    1) You are paying for capacity here that you never hope to use.

    2) There is a high degree of probability it will never be used.

    3) In my expert opinion as a scofflaw, the police presence is a deterent to criminal activity on school grounds.

    4) I wish this kind of thing wasn't necessary, but we can't take the old ostrich approach

    5) If something were to ever happen that an officer could have prevented, I would hate to be the school board member who voted against it.

    It's a service I don't want and an expense I can't afford. But safety is so imbedded in our mission that I am for it.

    Could we get Schwarzenegger from Kindergarten Cop?

    1. Kinda like the story of the Cold War - $trillions spent on weapons that were never fired, thank God.

      I think the SROs are a good idea, and clearly the high school principals, whom I respect a ton, feel that way as well.

      The question is whether the City's demand that the school district pay 100% of the cost of those officers (pro-rated) is a fair deal.

  3. Paul,

    One thing you are forgetting in this story is that up until a couple of years ago, this contract was on the order of $80k per year, the rest subsidized by the city (I imagine with the tax dollars collected by the income tax), then Schonehardt surprised the school in the last hour with making the school pay the full bill. Of course, the District caved. I sent in my feedback to the Mayor (which you can't contact directly, BTW), and talked to a member of City Council that lives in our neighborhood.

    I have always been against this policy of subsidizing the officers for the following reasons:

    - It is the City of Hilliard's responsibility to protect the employees, businesses and organizations in their community. Isn't that one of the reasons Income Tax is collected, to provide these services?

    - The City is asking for 100% subsidy from a revenue base that is only 39% provided from Hilliard residents. This means that City of Hilliard services are being supported by income generated outside the City.

    - The cost is for 3 Full Time officers, yet the school is in session 180 days a year. What are the officers doing the other 70 working days of the year. Okay, lets call it 50 after you take off vacation and sick time. That is a collective 150 days of officer time that will be used elsewhere in the City of Hilliard, with the bill footed by School District taxpayers, 60% of which are not residents of Hilliard.

    - I researched into other districts in the area, and almost universally the same service is either provided completely by the municipality, or subsidized at least 50% with a much lower rate.

    I agree, protection of our students is of the utmost importance. One thing you can ask the Principals are the documented accounts of serious issues where the officers have been invaluable.

    I would also recommend the Board put some effort into this and research what other Districts do to see if there are alternatives. In reality, this should have been done a couple years ago when the City first surprised the District of this plan so we wouldn't have to cave into the Mayor, again. (BTW, just the fact that this hasn't been done belies the claim by the District that they do everything they can to be cost conscience.)

    I am a resident of Hilliard, so I should be very happy with this arrangement which benefits the city. However, I can't support it when it is another example of the City fleecing the School District, as well as the School District bending over and wasting money without a fight or looking at alternatives. The City has the School District over a barrel, and both sides know it.

    I have said for a long time that the District needs to control what it can control. By not looking for alternatives for this service is an example where they are not.


    1. Thanks for this info. I've asked the Treasurer for a history of the payments we've made under this contract.

  4. Hello Paul,

    Thank you once again for posting these documents. These are an invaluable resource for our community and it is highly disappointing the district does not automatically post these materials to the website.

    Short answer to your question is "no." Extended response - you are absolutely correct on point #1. On point #2, the duty of the officers is to serve and protect anyone, regardless of their residence, within the Hilliard City borders at all times. On point #3, perhaps we should address the underlying problems that cause "situations" rather than the symptoms. On point #4, it sad that we are reduced to a culture of fear.

    Also, I am disturbed by the prospect of a agreeing to a multi-year contract with unknown costs.

    Rather we could use this money for the educational supplies such as additional technology resources needed in classrooms. Just a quick look at the Performing Arts Course of Study Final lists particular equipment but if you look at the Donations Log, you will see that only happens if PTOs provide it. (And last time I checked we had 14 elementary buildings not 13.)

    Again, glad you posted this information and appreciate your efforts. (Now to contact the district to correct the donation log with the full list of items our PTO took a lot of effort to donate.)

  5. I'm beginning to see this as two issues:
    1) Do you want cops in schools?
    2) Should the schools be required to pay for the service?

    1. I think that's right. I'm thinking: 1) we do; and, 2) we already do.

  6. First off, thank goodness Paul is on the board because with the other 4 happy happy go alongs this would have slid by again, again and again like so many issues

    Paul, still waiting on a REAL discussion by this district on its remedial issue with a district that is
    excellent with......

    I will be interested to see how our anti tax recently elected council people will come out on this. This is another tax shift that I have spoken to for so long it makes me almost as ill as the job actions of 2008 against our children.

    So hello Joe and Nathan, and Al and the folks on council You all talk about taxes, but this is another tax shift to the everyday homeowner and soon this price will be in the millions of dollars not hundreds beforeyou can say the typical line from the schools about YOU ARE HURTING THE KIDS during levy time when we have out of control medical costs and dont have our district employees paying anywhere near what everyone else does.

    So Al, and Nathan, and Kelly and Sciottooo yo and the rest are we going to have our school taxes used for fire service as well. Perhaps Paul, we all need to get some
    fire training at Tolles for a volunteer force to take care of EMS coverage and fire coverage for our schools
    Laugh if you want, think about it.

    If ANY board member from this day forward votes to
    give the city any bond money for road infrastructure improvements, or any other giveaways of SCHOOOOOOOOOOOL
    funding then they should resign.

    This thins is so out of control it makes ones head spins
    Somehow the board and the district will pin this one on the voters and school district residents that this is our fault and we will need more money immediatly to pay for this. This percentage increase is so far out of whack
    it makes me wonder why the people of Hilliard continue to be fooled

    Paul, all of you should show up at council, call the papers, national media, local media, and ask publicly at a council meeting just what the hell is going on here with such a ridiculous increase. As these are all REPUBS
    sic sic, perhaps our anti tax council, as so brilliantly and consistently brought forth their taxviews in thlast election can explain this tax shift.

    Paul, this is not about voting no on this. This should be 5 board members, the supt, the district adm, the school employees, HEA< Oapse uniting and making a
    spectacle about this. As long as we can spend money on newsletters home, why would we not execute a massive email, mailings to taxpayers showing this theft of school funding for providing police and safety to our kids.

    Whats next, a special fee everytime a fire emergency or saftey forces come on school property ? Enough of
    this tax shift nonense while telling us you are anti tax
    increase from our city government

    Everyone should be contacting city council and let them know you will not tolerate this tax increase

    1. One point of clarification - fire/life safety services in our schools are provided by the Norwich Twp Fire Department, which is funded by property taxes collected by the township.

      You mentioned "bond money for road infrastructure improvements." I presume you're talking about TIFs, like the one was was used to rebuild the Roberts/Alton-Darby intersection, and the one which was used for the new development at the corner of Cemetery Rd and Britton Pkwy.

      The law allows a municipality to grant TIFs of up to 75% without the permission of the school district, and this is what the City of Hilliard has started to do.

      Until recently, such TIFs were written by the City of Hilliard so that the developer continued to make payments to the school district equivalent to what they would have paid in school tax. This is the kind of deal BMW Financial agreed to for example.

      But now with these mixed residential/commercial developments, they're giving a 75% TIF to the commercial portion, and no TIF to the residential portion. Except that they have defined apartments as 'commercial' under this policy, so both of the Schottenstein apartment complexes (at Roberts and at Wilcox) were given TIFs. So we get more kids and very little additional revenue.

      The City seems to think the school district is the rich uncle in our community family, and it seeks any opportunity to redirect taxes people have voted for their school district to fund City obligations.

      I've gone before the City Council to complain that this policy seems to be designed to make the school district be the bad guys, buy having to raise taxes to replace money that the City took.

  7. Paul,

    A couple questions:

    The contract states:
    "3. Further, it is mutually agreed between the parties that the Chief of Police, in consultation with the Safety Director and the Superintendent or designee, will determine the duties of the School"

    Do you know what the specific duties of these Resource Officers have been in the past at the high schools?

    Also, based on those duties, could these positions be filled in a more cost effective way via a private security company?


    1. I don't know precisely the duties, but the thing they do that's most important to the principals is take control of situations that have or might turn violent.

      As police officers, they are allowed to use force as necessary to end such a situation, something private security folks aren't allowed to do, as I understand it. The police officers can also call in tons of backup, and get help on the scene much more quickly than making a 911 call, which is all I think a private security officer can do.

      If we're going to have security officers in our schools, I'd prefer they be Hilliard Police Officer, who know the community, know the kids, and can call on lots of resources.

      In my mind, the issue is who should bear how much of the cost.

  8. Thank you for asking for feedback on this issue and providing this agenda item. FYI The agenda once again has not been posted on the district web site.

    1. Children of our community are special, however if we want police in the schools we need to pay the cost.

    2. If Nationwide Insurance moved their home office to Hilliard with 30,000 workers would we place police officers in the building because of income tax paid?

    3. While the district is the largest employer remember they pay no property tax to the city or to townships yet the fire department would still respond.

    4. Why school workers pay income tax they do not pay any social security and thus the district does not pay the match.

    5. The district is the largest employer, yet one that does not pay property tax or social security, so it is a business with special needs for themselves yet do not give back to the community as a regular employer would.

    6. Do you think moving the central office payroll out of the city helps in this situation?

    7. As Mark commented where are the officers the other 70 days. They are the same place as the teachers or maybe the work a whole year for their pay.

    Feel free to remove as this is a real sensitive item, but worth addressing.
    8. Given the number of students lost to motor vehicle accidents, maybe the money would be better spent on safety education.
    9. Maybe we should review student security using an id badge which would limit access to buildings and provide automated attendance records.

    1. Thanks for the feedback. A couple of comments:

      1. One way to frame the philosophical question is whether we already pay the cost via the $2m in income taxes. Another is to ask what kinds of incentives the City would give to an employer with generating $2 million in annual income taxes if that employer threatened to move out of the City. Of course, the school district can't go anywhere...

      2. A public school is different than a for-profit business. It is really a community service in which we all share the cost. Maybe a better comparison is asking whether folks going to the 4th of July celebration should have to pay admission to the park in order to pay for the extra police officers assigned for traffic and security.

      3. The city gets minimal income from property taxes - about $50 per $100,000 of market value (compared to the $1755 per $100,000 paid to the school district). The City's primary income source is property taxes, and they pushed hard to have the building annexed into the City just so they could collect the income taxes from all the teachers and staff. Bradley could have been left in the township (if we believe the City of Columbus in their pledge to start providing water/sewer service to unannexed land). Is it not fair to expect the City of Hilliard to provide these officers as a quid pro quo for annexing into their city? After all, the City routinely offers incentives to attract businesses (often with school district revenue, e.g. TIFs).

      4. The school employees and school workers pay significantly more into their private pension systems than they would otherwise pay into Social Security. The employer match to Social Security is 6.2%. Our match to the teacher pension fund is 14%. So it's not like we're getting break by not paying into Social Security.

      5. I don't know what "give back" means in the context of a public school system. Again, it is really a community service organization in which we all share the cost. The question really is which agency - the City or the School District - should have the burden of collecting the taxes. Remember that when the city transfers a cost from their budget to the school budget, it is net zero cost to the community, but the city is left with more money to spend, and the school district with less. That's really the objective here.

      6. Fair point, however that is only about $40,000/yr out of a total of $2 million of income tax paid.

      7. The theory is that we're paying for only the days the officers are on site. 180 days * 8 hours/day = 1440 hours or of their full-year hours of 2080. So we pay 1440/2080 or 69% of the annual cost of an officer x 3 officers.

      8. I think the kids already get that kind of education through their driver's ed courses. But reinforcement never hurts.

      9. Sadly, I think the violence the administrators are most concerned about is student-on-student, which a security system wouldn't stop. Besides, having worked my whole life in an environment controlled by security card access, that kind of system is effective only if folks are willing to stop "followers." But almost everyone will hold a door open for the person following, even if they are a stranger.

      Thanks for the input. This really is a philosophical debate - good arguments can be made either way.

    2. Correction to #3 above - the primary source of income for the City is income taxes, not property taxes.

  9. Paul,

    Thanks for your great work on both this posting board and the school board. I find it sad that we need to have police in the school buildings. If there is a need and I feel there is, then we should have them.

    Once we arrive at defining the need, it is then the cost. Paying for the service is just the cost of doing business. We as a district need to look at every expense and assign one of the following. 1) must have 2) nice to have 3) like to have. We then fund on that basis. Given that we have yet to do that with class offerings it is a reach to think the administration could do this.

    The HCSD is a large employer in the area and the City of Hilliard. Please remember that the city income tax is collected from the workers not the school district. This might be a point a previous poster was addressing. Social Security is paid by the employer and employee. Items such as SSI and other benefits which city residents are provided.

    Given the small amount the city is asking, we should just pay it as a cost of doing business. The cost to the district for the teachers union president was about 33% of the police protection cost. Board members signed off on that part of the contract. So I see no problem with paying for a service that is provided for the children. The cost of the union president was for the teachers not the children.

    I live in the city, I pay income tax to the city. If we had terminated the win-win agreement then the school district and city community would have been one. The cost would be shared by the same population group. We renewed the agreement and the district had no voice in the SB 5 issue. We made the bed so now we must sleep in it.

    Protect the children, pay the city and you will have done your job as a board member.

    1. Thanks for your comment Dave. A couple of things:

      Yes, technically the income tax is collected from the employees, but the funding to pay the employees is the property taxes we all pay. One could equally say that our property tax dollars originates with the revenue generated by our employers. The point is that the City is collecting a boatload of revenue via the school district, and if that's not largely to pay for police protection, what is it for?

      I think you are mistaken as to what might have happened had we not renewed the Win-Win Agreement. That would not have automatically caused the school district to shrink to the city limits of the City of Hilliard. The State Board of Education sets school district boundaries, and they don't change them unless they are petitioned to do so by one or more school districts. It's not at all clear that Columbus City Schools would have made such a petition, or that the State Board of Ed would have granted it.

      By the way, my wife and I have lived in the Hilliard City School District for over 30 years, since it was called Scioto Darby Local Schools (and I wish it still was). We have paid Hilliard Schools property taxes the whole time, and our kids attended Hilliard Schools from kindergarten through graduation.

      Yet we have never lived within the boundaries of the City of Hilliard. Fellow board member Doug Maggied has lived in the school district all his life, and is himself is a graduate of our school district. He has never lived within the Hilliard city limits either.

      Our school district is and has always been much larger than the City of Hilliard. And at least half its funding over the years has come from properties outside the city - including some of the largest industrial and commercial parcels.

      Thanks again for your input. These comments are helping me make my decision.

    2. When I said "half its funding" I should have been clearer. That's half the local funding. The district also receives a substantial hunk of funding from the State of Ohio. Of course, that originated with our state income tax dollars too, but that another topic...

  10. The SROs are in essence, an insurance policy. They're something you pay for, hope you never need, but if you do you're glad you have it, and if you don't have it you don't want to be the person who made the decision not to get it.

    While police services are provided to the schools if we have SROs or not, what we are paying for is essentially response time and deterrence. In the time it takes an officer in the field to respond to one of the schools, a SRO can make a huge difference. Currently police departments are looking at how they respond to certain situations, and in fact are focusing on response time over officer safety.

    Taking the $232,733 cost divided by the 4,769 enrollment at the high schools (Sept 2011), gives a cost of $48.80 per student, or $0.27 per student per school day. For the price I think it's hard to say the service the SROs provide isn't worth the cost.

    But of course there is the subject of should HCSD pay the full price. Unfortunately the district is in a weak negotiating position. HPD doesn't lose very much if we don't have SROs, and if the board threatens to not sign the contract with the current terms the board looks like they are placing money ahead of students' security. The district can't up and move to another jurisdiction like a business could. The only negotiating point would be if other PDs with overlapping jurisdiction (the county or state) were willing to negotiate to provide SROs instead, with a portion being subsidized (if such a program even exists).

    There are some things I think that would be in the interest of the district to take a closer look at, in light of the recent issues with the Columbus SRO arrest. While SROs are police officers and as such the assumption is made that a SRO is a "safe" person to have around, would it be worth explicitly spelling out in the contract that the SRO must meet the same background check and personal conduct requirements that any district employee would have?

    Additionally, I see in the contract that the SRO is to provided by a single officer rather than a rotation. While the consistency of dealing with the same SRO can ease dealings with administration, it also provides time that the students can begin to feel a familiarity which could hinder being seen as the authority they are there to represent. At minimum, I wonder if it would be worth rotating the SROs between schools. That way the SROs stay familiar with how the schools work, and CO Administration, but students don't become too accustomed to any one SRO.

    1. Good feedback. I think most people agree that it's a good thing to have the SROs in our high school. The question is which set of elected officials have to put it in their budget. The City of Hilliard has decided that even though they get 100% of the benefit of the $2 million in income taxes paid to the city by all the taxpayers of the school district (via the district employee's paychecks), it's not their responsibility to bear the cost of the SROs.

      Instead, the City officials want the school district officials to raise the property taxes necessary to pay the employees - and via that channel the income taxes - AND to raise additional money to pay for the SROs.

      And then they want to TIF new development so that property tax money designated for the school district gets redirected to the construction of roads and infrastructure, which is the responsibility of the City.

      I'm sure that if a new corporation were looking at moving into the region, bringing with it a $100 million annual payroll, and that corporation asked potential host cities to provide an onsite police presence for 8hrs/day, the cities competing for the corporation would gladly make that concession.

      The school district can't go anywhere.

      The City and school district have a symbiotic relationship. The school district needs the city to provide infrastructure and police services. The desirability of the city is largely dictated by the perceived quality of the school district.

      So this is really like two sibling who each get a $5 allowance arguing over who should pay for the two liter bottle of pop they want to share. Makes no difference to the parents - they're out $10 either way. But it makes a lot of difference to the two siblings...

  11. Upon reflection, the 'cost ball' should be in the Police Chief's court on this one.

    Putting myself in his shoes, I begin to think about the overall mission of my force. I consider that with or without this payment, the schools are a high (perhaps the highest) security priority in my jurisdiction.

    Charging the schools for protection just seems like bad form.

    Also, I'm beginning to rethink having the police actually in the schools. Bradley is different, but I have to imagine that the avg response time at the other two is 3-4 minutes. Those Hilliard cops get on you like white on rice, haha....

    1. Pretty much my position as well, and I said so during the debate about this resolution last night.

  12. Again, thanks for everyone's input, both here and via other channels. In the end, I voted in favor of the resolution to authorize the Superintendent to sign the SRO contract with the City. But this won't be forgotten in the dialog with our fellow elected representatives on City Council. First the school district pays for roads and infrastructure via TIFs, now we're paying for police officers to protect our kids. What's next?

  13. Paul,

    I think we have to look at SROs as prevention...plain and simple. Yes, their response time to an incident would be a smidge faster than cruisers but their real value is prevention. Prevention at school and, honestly, within the community as they are interacting with the students on a daily basis.

    Asking who should absorb that cost is a very good question. If we did not have SROs in the schools after having them for so long, I would think someone would have to do a MAJOR justification as to why they were released if anything ever happened. God forbid, something tragic occurred, the liability or negligence argument could be substantial for the District to face. SROs can be eliminated but thought would definitely have to be put into it and I would recommend finances not be the sole reason for ceasing the program.

    With all of that said, I would recommend attempting to calculate a fair cost that the school and city should pay together with HCSD assuming more of the cost. Maybe divide the SRO's salaries, benefits, etc. by the number of days worked within the schools and then do an 80/20 calculation (80% benefit to HCSD and 20% benefit to the city at large) or similar. We live within Hilliard so we would pay the taxes either way but it seems the most fair to do some kind of a calculation. May I ask a question. Is Bradley High School actually within the city of Hilliard? I assume yes but, if not, that should affect the calculation.

    1. Mom:

      Monday night, the Board voted 5-0 to sign the SRO contract as presented. We pay 69% of the fully-loaded annual actual cost for three officers, reflecting the fraction of a work year that they will be in the schools.

      There was never a question as to whether we'd have these officers in the high schools. I asked the question as to their value last year, and we heard a compelling argument from the three principals as to their value. The only question was whose budget was going to get hit - the school district's or the city's. We are frankly kinda over a barrel on this one.

      Yes, Bradley was annexed into the City of Hilliard, as mandated by the deal we had to sign with Homewood Homes to get an easement to run water/sewer lines across their property, all the way from Alton-Darby Rd. Good deal for the City, who gets all the income tax revenue from the folks who work at the high school, and for Homewood, who gets free access to a water line that cost the school district's taxpayers $800K to build.

      Not sure what the school district got out of the deal. And one has to ask the question why a simple easement deal with Homewood required the annexation to the City of Hilliard.

    2. Thanks for continuing to question the status quo. In the end, it makes the district better.

  14. Paul, was any due diligence done to check what surrounding districts have SROs at their schools and at what cost to the districts?

    1. Not that I know of. I don't know that any of us were concerned about what other districts do in regard to SRO. This decision was about need (the principals said SROs are important), and who was going to pay for it (the City decided to stick the school district with the bill).

  15. A properly functioning organiztion would have done two things within the THREE years since the City of Hilliard first dumped this funding surprise on our laps:

    1) Look into alternatives (private security, City of Columbus Police Officers,...)

    2) Performed a thorough survey/analysis of what other districts do.

    Hopefully these were done. I have seen no evidence that it has been performed. Isn't it the Board's duty (60% which were in office three years ago) to challenge the administration to follow these paths, instead of just going by the pleas of the Principals?

    The City has the District over a barrel, and unfortunately they are leveraging it to their own gain. Does Dublin have the same friction? Worthington? New Albany? Do we know?

    Then again, the City of Hilliard has a history of taking advantage of the "barrels" (this, TIFs, Sewer, Annexation). The only situation I can think of where the District retaliated is moving the Administration office outside of City of Hilliard. In some ways, kudos to Schonhardt for taking advantage of every situation they could to help their bottom line. Then again, there typically ends up being a price paid for managing to the bottom line.

    By that time, the current leadership for both parties will be long gone, leaving the future kids to pay the price.

    1. Thanks for your comment Mark. To your points:

      1. If we're going to have security personnel in the buildings, I would prefer that they be our community's police officers. I don't know the comparison in cost between police officers and security guards, but it would surprise me if the difference is that significant. We're paying the actual cost of the police officers (the City did provide us with a breakdown), while in the case of private security, we would be paying the fully loaded labor cost - likely to be much less - but with the margin of profit added on.

      2. While I'm a fan of having comparative data to inform decisions, in this matter I'm not sure it's relevant. It's what we want as a community, and how much we're willing to pay to have it.

      I post this stuff in advance of the board meetings in hope of getting as much community input as possible BEFORE we make a decision, whether it's here on the blog, via an email or a phone call, or speaking during the public time we have in every meeting.

      I very much appreciate all of you who read this blog, and especially those like you who engage in the dialog.

  16. Paul, thank you for again leading the way on the issue
    Now what can we expect from the other four and the newest board member seems in step as feared with the other 3. Taxes will go up because our administration failed to do its homework as suggested by Mark. It seems we want some sort of utopia, so why not contract with an outside force who could provide consistent service with positive personel officers from a wide background and experience. Again, this is what happens in the real world everyday, cost consciousness, versus
    we must have. As I noted before, this cost will continue to skyrocket and the full cost will be upon us

    Thank you also Paul for your testimony and interest with the Darby Accord situation for the proposed new development
    Where were your colleagues on the board, this should be a board discussed item IN PUBLIC not hoping it goes away

    Funny, the district is afraid to confront the city
    about anything, but has no issue confronting taxpayers about not caring about our kids at levy time. Actually not funny

    New Health care survey. No margin of error on this poll
    50 single taxpayers polled what is your yearly average for
    just medical Average cost 2500 dollars per year plus
    vision, dental etc

    Average time off for sick and vacation 10.5 days

    At contract time we can save some money on medical costs

    Also in new contract, practice of confronting students
    about comments made by family or friends should have some consequences written into the contract. Does not the student conduct code have consequences for being disrespectful or confronting a district employee ?

    Thanks again Paul for all your work and especially
    the Darby Accord testimony. This is so very important to
    significant growth of students in our schools.