JG Editorial excerpt:Sodemann was a little more than half-right. He must have forgot about the large minority of nearly 10,000 residents (including myself) who thought the referendum was excessive. Even though this referendum passed and Sodemann was the only school board member at the time defending taxpayers with more choices for a leaner and more balanced referendum, people have short memories soon after they sign up for a balloon mortgage.
And, as board member Bill Sodemann noted Monday, voters in November did say “Yes, charge it to me.”
JG Sound Off Excerpt:I don’t blame this person, and it’s not often I would bother to defend a card carrying Republican like Sodemann but he had little to do with the referendum passage, neither did Cullen or Rashkin, those two weren’t on the board at the time. Look at the others, they're the ones who pushed for increasing the school tax burden exclusive from benefiting the teachers.
Thumbs down to Bill Sodemann, especially to the remarks of, “They did say, “Yes, charge it to me” on the school referendum of $70 million. No more referendums should be voted on from now on. If so, charge it to Bill Sodemann. -- anonymous
But he is still a member of the board and people expect the brokers (school board) including the I told you so Sodemann, to continue to work on their behalf to lower the charge card bill.
I now wonder how many teachers would have supported the frilly school expansion had they known they would be paying considerably more than the average taxpayer to pay for it.
"Who would have known that the school “rainy day” fund the teachers helped build through small but accumulating sacrifices over the years would actually be used not for school budget and operational expenses but as a taxpayer rebate fund used to alleviate a fiscal crisis partially inflated by the referendum they supported?"The Janesville Gazette only rubs salt into the wound with their apparent satisfaction that the balance fund has not been used for the sake of those overpaid teachers.
JG Editorial Excerpt:We all know that teachers, their living expenses and health care are immune to inflation, much better to reduce the taxpayer anticipated $103 tax increase down to $74. That's a whopping $29 annual savings!
But that wouldn’t be wise. Using that money to pad pay would only compound the problem during the next contract, when teachers will want still higher pay. Soon, the fund would be depleted.
JG Editorial Excerpt:Barf! You know something, the Gazette editors are pulling the same crap they did on Judy Robson. No matter what happens at this late stage in the negotiations, blame those (union) leaders because although they did not request mediation, the other guys (school board) did, they (JEA) must be "ineffective" because it went this far.
Despite public claims otherwise, we sense that JEA leaders really want mediation. That way, they can tell members they went as far as they could to get the best possible deal.
The Gazette, through their editorial power and anonymous column are able to transform the people who voted for increasing taxes onto themselves suddenly into a group of angry tax stingy citizens who say enough is enough, now that the teachers contract is in the picture. These are very common distortions used to divide teacher support and then conquer.
In addition, had Robson and her democratic colleagues not fought off the Gazette’s GOP state assembly budget back in July, schools would have gotten millions less in state aid. Instead Robson hung in there and became "ineffective" trying to pad that pay.
2 comments:
Greetings: Just so you know, my comment noting that the taxpayers did say "yes, charge it to me", was not presented by the Gazette in its full context. I was simply noting that the majority of the voters last November did choose to have these higher taxes. That doesn't mean that I was in favor of it! Far from it. As you recall I was the only one (on the board) who voted against it.
Of course I also voted to use the fund balance to reduce the tax burden now, but next year we will probably not have this luxury and the taxpayers will start to feel the full brunt of the referendum.
I also noted that it was odd that my fellow school board members, who knew what the property tax impact would be, were now concerned about the high tax levy. I am glad that they decided to reduce the burden this year however.
My comment in no way meant that I forgot about those who voted against the referendum. How could I? I am one of them.
Because we are of different political stripes, I know that I will probably be on the receiving end of some criticism from this web site. On this issue however, I don't deserve any.
Thanks for letting me respond.
Bill Sodemann
The Gazette, not presenting something in full context? Not the Gazette. You must be mistaken. Of course I'm just kidding, but they made their point at your expense.
We all like tax cuts, but I'm also not for using a school "rainy day" fund to rebate tax payers.
School board members are in a tough position, you have to prioritize the kids, teachers, schools and education needs first and efficiently AGAINST the taxpayers, after all it's a school board - not a taxpayer board.
There's a lot here, rhetorically speaking, taxpayers vote themselves a brick and mortar tax increase but appear adamantly against teachers compensation and benefits, leverage is lost, the basics aren't covered, funds are redirected from their objectives. Somethings wrong.
You have little criticism or surprises to worry about from me, Bill. It's the partisans of either stripe who pretend they're not are the ones to watch out for.
Thanks for visiting!
Post a Comment