Thanks To Walker, Janesville Schools Face Huge Budget Shortfall

Tweet

By John Peterson

The sad thing is many in Wisconsin will not be exposed to these random local news pieces, sad stories that expose "It's Working" as nothing more than a campaign marketing gimmick and lie.

Like all the school stories I've blogged here, class sizes have increased and district budgets will be dramatically short next year. In fact, under Scott Walker's plan, school funding will continue to ratchet down. By the summer of next year, Walker will be facing more than recall ads ripping him a new one. He will be exposed as a fraud. This story from Janesville is even more outrageous when you consider the state just gave Spectrum Brands $4 million to do absolutely nothing...

....classrooms could be filled to capacity in the 2012-2013 school year as the district looks for ways to plug a projected $8 million to $10 million budget shortfall.

Channel3000:

---

Added Note: One important aspect to add is the fact that Janesville recently completed a school expansion that included new classroom additions and gymnasiums to give students more elbow room. The $70.8 million school expansion referendum passed during a media blackout of projected enrollment decline.

School Rainy Day Fund Used For Taxpayer Storm

Tweet

I've been deliberately quiet on Janesville teacher negotiations for a couple of months now, but this weekend's Gazette editorials were just too good too ignore.

JG Editorial excerpt:
And, as board member Bill Sodemann noted Monday, voters in November did say “Yes, charge it to me.”

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.

JG Sound Off Excerpt:
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

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.

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:
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.

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!

JG Editorial Excerpt:
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.

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.

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.

Why Risk Failure By Trying?

Tweet

As I read about yet another privately owned semi-pro team’s difficulties of finding a home field stadium somewhere in Rock County, I wondered if the football team Gladiators have spoken with the Beloit Snappers. Now it appears there are at least two teams willing to help fill the stadium of dreams touted by several wealthy county residents. Which brings me to my point here.

The Rock County Gladiators, a new semipro football team approached the Janesville School District about using the districts premier high school stadium for a few games. The district is being careful about the request and understandably has liability concerns.

But whether it was the new four-court gyms of the Janesville School Referendum or the newly renovated Janesville City Hall kitchen complete with LCD TV, one of hot selling points brought up to convince the taxpayers to open their wallets is the idea that these facilities can be used by the public for various events and community activities. Now, I’m not for turning public-use facilities over to profit motivated private entities without getting a piece of the pie. But I wonder where the city attorney was with all of their liability insurance contingencies when pro-referendum salesmen insisted school facilities can double-duty as a center for other community activity.

JG Editorial Excerpt:
When the district was justifying its $70 million referendum to upgrade and expand the high schools, officials suggested improvements could lead to more community uses.

If everyone needs the same insurance coverage to use a public facility the schools requested from the Gladiators, its easy to say the community can use the facilities but only providing certain conditions are met first including:
-- obtain at least $10 million in liability coverage, naming the school or city as one of those insured.
-- agree to reimburse the city for any "financial consequences of injuries to persons or property."
-- The city obtain additional property insurance to cover damage to the structure, with the user paying for the coverage, costing about $500.
-- contract for security services and staff - no volunteers-according to any police or school district requirement.
-- The city would be able to cancel with two hours' notice, and the user would be responsible for finding an alternative site.
-- The user would pay for the cost of cleaning the facilities, and the city could hire a private service for that purpose.
-- The city could cancel the agreement with five days' notice.
-- The user pay the city’s usual commercial rate for use of the structure, and would be responsible for any additional costs of using the structure.

Considering we live in such a lawsuit crazy society, I agree with all of the school's demands, but where was all this rhetoric about liability during the referendum run-up? The next time someone helps justify spending $70 million with the double-duty public usage talking point, I'll ask them to guarantee the liability insurance among other things. I'm afraid we haven't heard the last about the tactics employed to pass the Janesville School Referendum yet. People are winning awards for pulling off this sham.

These protections are necessary and are just another reason why the county’s decision to scrap the land swap deal was a very smart decision under tremendous pressure. The county’s responsibilities to protect the taxpayers are no different than the school district’s - that's the reality. On one hand I admit we will accomplish nothing if we have to worry about every single thing that might go wrong, but I have to ask – Where are those deep-pocketed venture capitalists entrepreneurs and risk-takers when you really need them? Perhaps the risk really is too great.

Elmbrook School District Taxpayers Just Too Smart

Tweet

If you live in Janesville and haven’t been paying attention to the $108 million renovation plans proposed in the Elmbrook School District referendum, it really won’t matter for you to know that it failed.

The largest community in the Elmbrook School district, Brookfield, boasts a total property value of almost $6 billion, which ranks behind only the much larger cities of Milwaukee and Madison. When it comes to a school district with resources to finance public education, few can match Elmbrook. Were they too wealthy to pass the school referendum?

Forty-nine percent of the city's adult population, census figures say, has at least a bachelor's degree double the national profile. Or, were they too smart to fall for the old tricks and deception?

Yet when Elmbrook residents voted Tuesday to address problems the district says it has with its two high school buildings, the plans were rejected by lopsided margins. Turnout was 58% in Brookfield, the highest since 1991 for a spring election in that city. They defeated the referendum, 61% to 39%. I know, they must hate kids.

Residents said they are already satisfied with the district's education and facilities and see little need for the unprecedented price tag of more than $100 million. But others see the results as further evidence of an economic and political climate that makes passing school spending proposals difficult. In this Bush booming, job producing and wild growth economy – how could that be?

Many in Wisconsin think they reflect the anti-tax climate and budget pressures on families, such as rising fuel, utility and health costs. But not if you live in Janesville. The Elmbrook school improvement plans presented in Elmbrook's referendum would have had a tax impact on an average $335,000 McMansion of $342 per year for 20 years. That is very close to what homeowners in Janesville will pay relative to value, if you recall. Our referendum will cost about $105 for every $100,000.

In Janesville, we don’t worry about such trivial things as heating bills, health insurance, mortgages or rising taxes, everything is sooo low here why, we have little to lose.

Blogger:
All I can say is I have heard rumblings that this (referendum)may pass. Has anyone given thought to the fact that the schools will be expanded, while the district is experiencing declining enrollment. Factor that into your decision.

Why doesn’t THAT surprise me?

People in Elmbrook apparently believe what they think, and not what they're told. Proof that their schools are just fine.

Note: A quote by Dale Knapp of the Taxpayers Alliance taken from this article was removed from this posting. The date was mistakenly overlooked, the quote was over a year old.

School Referendum How-To

Tweet

Apparently, Janesville is starting to develop a reputation of sorts when it passed a gargantuan school building referendum in November. So it doesn’t surprise me when I learned that other school districts in Wisconsin are turning to Janesville for advice on how to pull the wool over the eyes of taxpayers how to make a zillion dollar school building referendum palatable to taxpayers in the face of high taxes and budget deficits.

JG Excerpt:
The thumbs-up that Janesville voters gave to last November’s high school referendum has raised eyebrows – and hopes – elsewhere in Wisconsin.

IT SHOULD raise eyebrows. The referendum was approved 13,000 to 10,000 and surprised a lot of people. Those who supported the referendum may have won the game, but I wouldn’t put too much stock into how the game was played. What is important, is the fact that nearly TEN THOUSAND people came out to vote on their own free will and accord, without any help and against all the powers that be, in the face of overwhelming odds and voted against the referendum and lost. There are a lot of angry people in Janesville.

LOOKING BACK at the election, the NO vote had zero organization aside from my little rants and the efforts from Dwight Brass, a brave soul from Fulton Township who held a few meetings at the Hedberg Library trying to drum up opposition. While the YES vote had the support from the town's newspaper, the Janesville Gazette, organized business (Forward Janesville) and a $30,000 ad hoc committee called TLC. People are only now finally beginning to realize what hit them, and I would guess with everything being equal, if the referendum vote were suddenly held tomorrow, it would lose.

JG Excerpt:
Officials of the Elmbrook School district visited Janesville "and reviewed plans and politics surrounding our November 2006 high school facilities referendum" according to a memo from Superintendent Tom Evert to the school board.

Now the Elmbrook School District in Wisconsin is attempting to pass a $99 million school referendum on April 3rd. The Elmbrook School District is approximately 20% smaller than Janesville's and their referendum is approximately 40% larger at nearly $100 million, but the district has one thing working in its favor. The Elmbrook school district lies in Wisconsin’s wealthiest county. It is composed of mainly upper and some middle class residents, with a median income at around $76,000 according to the 2000 U.S. Census. They don’t turn down their thermostats in the winter to save money to pay bus fare to go to work. Surely they must think that if a working-class town like Janesville can pass a $70.8 million school referendum, the upper crust could wing this with ease.

The Janesville School District however had very little to do with selling the referendum, in fact, I think they are not permitted to offer any recommendations to the voter except to explain the actual make-up of the referendum. So the school district may not be the right place to visit unless you just want to talk about the referendum itself.

If you really want to review the tactics employed to accomplish this amazing feat, you have to visit the town's newspaper, the Janesville Gazette. They are the ones who kept the wraps on the school budget deficits during the run-up, they also ran referendum question and answer articles regularly favoring the referendum, apparently on their own dime. For those who haven’t scheduled a “How to pass a school referendum seminar” yet, I could save you a trip and explain right here the basic requirements.

1. If your referendum includes expanding your schools while facing projections of declining enrollment, never connect the two. Just talk about declining enrollment as the reason why teachers and special aide programs must be cut and blame state enrollment guidelines, BUT ONLY AFTER the referendum has passed.
2. If your district is facing heart-wrenching consecutive annual deficits or other impending tax increases, MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE the local newspapers DO NOT REMIND the taxpayers of this for at least three months before election, seven months are even better.
3. Don’t write or talk about high state taxes or property taxes at all during the run-up, in fact, only talk about how other public utilities like garbage pick-up, water and sewer, library or even the wages of your city leaders are lower than others in peer cities. This helps give people the impression they have loads of extra money to burn.
4. DO NOT give the voters any choice by breaking the referendum into individual projects. If you do, people will naturally assume then that something is wrong and only vote for the things that are really necessary. Play hardball politics with this, throw as much in the referendum as you can.
5. Although this is about education, impress upon people that even if they don’t care about the schools, they should still be selfish enough to vote YES because it may increase their property values.
6. Tell the people that now is the time to take LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY and beat the Madison politicians at their own game and vote yourself tax increases - before they do.
7. Downplay opposition as stingy old people who hate kids and divide the community into the “haves” and the “have nots.”

OF COURSE all of this is moot if the town's main newspaper is not on your side. And lastly, if you’re just starting to learn this three weeks before the referendum polling takes place, it will probably fail. It takes at least six months of a constant drumbeat and complete censorship of the real issues to make something like this work. But ask your newspaper, not your school board.

Gazette Vision: Keeping Voters In The Dark

Tweet

The last time I wrote about the Janesville School District budget cuts, people in charge of the situation blamed falling enrollment as the primary reason for the shortfall. This, coming on the heels of promoting a $70.8 million school utility upgrade and expansion.

But the budget debates are now over and with further cuts looming down the road for the next budget, its beginning to appear like the successfully passed $70.8 million referendum will hang around the necks of the school board and taxpayers for years to come. Many Janesville residents don’t sympathize.

Consider the letter to the editor in the March 5th Gazette. Here the writer justifiably accuses the Gazette and the school board of not being forthright with voters during the referendum campaign up to election time. Although the referendum passed 13,000 to 10,000, many people feel that if they were informed of the consecutive annual school budget short-falls during the run-up, the outcome would have been different.

JG letter Excerpt:
It appears that this impending problem was intentionally ignored so the building referendums would pass.

What is interesting here is that at the end of the letter, the Gazette responded with one of their "Editors Notes."

JG Excerpt:
Editors Note: The Gazette reported March 14, 2006: "The district’s outlook is bleak for 2007-08,”and “a projection based on current state law would require another $1.8 million budget cut in 2007-2008."

Our editorial April 13, 2006: "District residents should realize program and staff cuts likely will get harder in the years ahead." We quoted then-board President Nancy Sonntag as saying, "Next year, we're going to be looking at cutting programs."

April 13th was the last time Janesville taxpayers seen a major article about the impending budget cuts all the way through the summer and fall of 2006 and right through November 7th when the referendum was finally passed. Not until after five days later on November 12th did the Gazette run a story in the local section where the school budget shortfall reared up its ugly head. After the referendum passed, the school budget shortfall became almost a weekly syndication in the Gazette, but not until Janesville voters were kept in the dark for nearly seven months.

Other dates are important too, like September 26, 2006 when the Gazette ran a front-page story about the TLC group promoting a “yes” vote and again, not one word was mentioned of the budget shortfall. One wonders how much impact the TLC promotion would have had on the referendum if they campaigned in March and April and remained silent thereafter.

And November 5th, just two days before the voters ran to the polls the Gazette encouraged a “yes” vote in their editorial titled "Use vision to vote “yes” to better schools," where the Gazette offered a reminder about their own guiding editorial principles but absolutely nothing about the impending school budget short-falls.

This proves two of my own maxims. No.1, people have short memories and No.2, what you don't read in the Gazette is usually right here.

Sunday School Funnies

Tweet

JG editorial excerpt:
The four court gym at each school would offer proper space for more physical education classes each hour. Childhood obesity is a growing problem, so let’s help…..And at about $100 per year per $100,000 home, it equates to sacrificing just one meal out a month.

There you go! Have each schoolchild skip one meal a month and you could cut millions off the referendum and the kids will be healthier, too.

JG excerpt:
I’m a student at Craig High School. I would like to know why we can spend billions in Iraq and some people don’t want to spend 28 cents a day to improve my education in our community. --anonymous

Great question! Could it be because those who can’t afford the 28 cents a day are not vicious extremists who use our troops to invade a sovereign nation and steal their oil? The Bush administration has blown over $325 billion of our money in Iraq. Money that could have otherwise been spent to improve Janesville schools, Rock county roads, police and fire departments and most of all, our health. Ask your Rep. Paul Ryan this question after he authored earmark control that allows the president to cherry-pick domestic spending on things like your education. But remember he’ll say, Iraq is a matter of our national security, so the president can spend all the pork on it he wants. For a teenager to ask a double-edged question like that shows that the Janesville schools are doing a pretty good job on teaching the kids deductive thinking.

JG excerpt:
A resident on page 1A Oct.30 complains about having to pay $12.50 a month for an owner of a $150,000 home. Tell me you cannot afford that for the welfare of the children. -- anonymous

I’ve taken some liberties with that comment and rewrote it. Here’s what the caller should have said: A resident on page 1A Oct. 30 complains about having to pay $12.50 a month for an owner of a $150,000 home with a debt load of over $300,000 for the next 25 years on their mortgage excluding their $3,500 a year property taxes. Tell me you cannot afford that for the welfare of the my children.

JG excerpt:
Proponents say its for the children. That’s what they always say to make everyone feel obligated. Start talk about trimming the fat off the top and then talk about money. – anonymous

I agree, the guilt tripping has been pretty heavy towards those who are against this referendum. Start trimming the fat off the top…. Of what? The school children? That would help.


It’s not about the schools or the children. For many, it’s the referendum.

Only Property Tax Payers Need Apply

Tweet

The school referendum debate is a hot issue in Janesville. Some letter writer’s to the Janesville Gazette are completely miffed as to why a resident would vote no. At least a few childless taxpayers have voiced their opposition to the referendum and some have suggested the school taxes be pro-rated based on the number of children a taxpayer has. Those are valid ideas that have fallen on deaf ears in the past, but I do believe quality public schools are everyone’s responsibility and not just the property tax payers. Nobody wants to discuss spreading the financial burden of local schools to all voters, but yet we allow all local voters to cast deciding votes regardless of their equity in property, schools or children.

For many, the school referendum has nothing to do with property values, children or the improvements, but everything to do with burdening the people who are saddled with the bill – the property tax payer. Many senior taxpayers and others on a fixed income cannot afford to raise their own taxes for any reason. While others think those opposed to the school referendum are selfish or don’t get the big picture.

JG Sound Off excerpt:
A caller last Sunday suggested childless people should vote “no” on the referendum. I’ve always thought that childless taxpayers should pay more in school taxes. After all, it is expensive to raise kids and yet it is the responsibility of the community to provide educational opportunities for children. Who do you suppose paid for the caller’s education? - anonymous

What a flaming remark. I suppose anonymous feels that people who don’t have kids should be punished for their circumstances. Yet the callers sarcasm is strong enough to imply some resentment for their own situation, that is, because kids are expensive, perhaps they feel punished for having them. Of course, none of this banter is positive and it just adds fuel to the fires of misunderstanding, but at the same token, some of the thoughts and emotions cannot go ignored.

What if by chance the childless taxpayer was sent to private K12 schools AND the parents paid for public education on their property tax bills as well. Also, are we supposed to be perpetually in debt to our children or vise-versa? Is that how we view children – as debt? On the other hand, saying that educational opportunities for children is the sole responsibility of the community is not quite right either. What is the definition of community? And more specifically, which community are you talking about?

Merriam-Webster’s definition of community:
1. a body of people living in the same place under the same laws; 2. society at large; 3. joint ownership

It becomes apparent that any definition of community you can find will not mention the property tax payer. I know it sounds ridiculous, yet much of rhetoric designed to encourage a “yes” vote talks about community as if to include everyone, but there is no rhetoric or plan to include everyone to pay. Now if the anonymous caller means the property tax paying community, well that’s different and it changes the argument completely by narrowing the paying pool down considerably.

There is no reason why a public school in Biloxi, Mississippi should be better or worse than a public school in Madison, Wisconsin. Of course, my idea of ensuring that “no public school is left behind” would charge the taxpaying community in its widest and purest form, which is the Federal income taxpayer. But those running (Republicans) our Federal government refuse to fund their own mandates or force the taxpayer to jump through a series of hoops in order to benefit from their own taxes. This is just another reason why most people are fed up with our current leadership in Washington and want a change.

Everybody has their own valid reasons to be against this school referendum. Whether it’s the air conditioning issue, the double four court gyms, the plan itself, the $70.8 million price-tag, the school districts seeming arrogance or the juggernaut of them all – higher taxes, there appears to be plenty enough differences against the referendum to actually hinder efforts to form a cohesive opposition group. At the same time it is possible the Janesville School referendum has enough obvious flaws that a formal united front opposing it may be unnecessary.


One of the more interesting ideas comes from Dwight Brass of Fulton Township who has attempted to organize opposition against the referendum. He started an organization called CARE, Citizens Allied for Responsible Education, and it seems to be based on a more objective approach. He believes the Janesville School referendums fundamental plan to the improvements and its relationship to enhancing education are inefficient and flawed. Brass argues that the school board plans are based on opinions and beliefs and not on research and proven methods. He apparently also believes the school board did not look at all options available or alternatives to achieve their goals. I agree.

Another idea shared by other states with some success would propose a referendum giving the voting rights on all specialized spending to only those who are paying the bill. Thus, if schools are solely funded by property taxes, only property taxpayers would be eligible to vote a tax increase, onto themselves. This too, needs consideration.

Voting “no” will not end the quest to improve Janesvilles schools but it may force the school board to reconsider its plan and approach the taxpayer with less belligerence. Any way you look at it, we need to find other sources of funding for public schools. Property taxpayers in Wisconsin want cuts, not increases. And please, spare the guilt trip.

Janesville Property Tax Hike - Republican?

Tweet

The October 1st edition of the Janesville Messenger was chock full of the right-wing idiology (correct spelling) that I’ve come to expect from them.

One article written by Jim Lyke and titled “Opposition to referendum may be shortsighted” was generally about his experience when he attended a Madison chamber of Commerce meeting intended to halt the growth of taxes. Lyke wrote that a Republican state senator from Milwaukee (whom he refused to name) said that Democrats were opposed to his taxcut plan and then stated “Well, they even supported a school referendum – so they must be communists.”

Referring to the $70.8 million Janesville School District referendum which would tax every homeowner an additional $103 a year for the next 10 years, Lyke feels it is shortsighted to oppose a tax just because it’s a tax. He also writes that since Forward Janesville fought against a county sales tax but endorses the property tax hike for the schools, it must be good.

Because the republican Lyke supports the School referendum he wrote that he was offended by his fellow Republicans “communist” comment. Promoting higher taxes to pay for improvements and services is the kiss of death for many politicians, particularly since Republicans have used high taxes as a political weapon against those dastardly tax and spend democrats. But now since Lyke, Forward Janesville and a few others want to tax and spend, they are looking for ways to get around the very same mantra they have beat up democrats with. They have even gone so far as to hire a marketing firm to convince voters to vote themselves a hefty tax increase. You see, when Republicans tax and spend it’s a sound investment and “capitalistic” in a good way. But when democrats tax and spend, Republicans view it as socialism or worse yet a “hand-out” or what the Republican senator from Milwaukee calls those kind of taxers and spenders, they're “communists.”

Contrary to all expectations it turns out, the Janesville Property tax hike is endorsed by those tax freeze Republicans.

Tax Increase Referendum explosion

Tweet

Walworth County, much like many counties throughout the state of Wisconsin if not the entire country is proposing a 10% hike in local taxes for 2007. Whether it is in LaCrosse, Elkhorn, Whitewater or Janesville, people are beginning to realize that if they support Federal taxcuts and simultaneously demand lower taxing requests from the state, they will be left to pay for goods and services including education and roads all on their own. Those promoting tax hikes on local payers insist it’s always been like this, but that is not entirely true. Rising property taxes in the current period have increased pressure on lawmakers to find new ways to limit tax increases. Republicans however have taken a different direction to the problem. Since they have no idea how to curb spending or keep taxes down, they’ve figured out a way to ensure they are not blamed for the higher taxes.

They have decided long ago as part of their “responsibility” platform to give people what they think they want and encourage more local control, not as a way to keep costs down, but as a way to disconnect themselves (republicans) from their primary duty of fiscal management. You see, why should they (Republicans) raise your taxes, when they can legislate taxing responsibilities onto the taxpayer themselves. Either you will vote the tax increase onto yourself or get used to potholes, decaying schools, poor police and fire protection. Instead of citizens charging the elected politicians to do the research, study and math necessary to form a solid basis for a good decision, the politicians have turned the tables and are now encouraging more public participation, telling voters to do the research and get involved. Under these terms, whichever way the taxpayer goes, they have nobody to blame but themselves, all the while the GOP comes out smelling like the good guys. This way too, only the Democrats then can be viewed as the tax and spend party, when in all actuality they are the responsible party.

In Wisconsin, this idea has been proposed as a Constitutional amendment by the republican legislature earlier this year. Republican lawmakers have pushed to put state-imposed clamps on spending by schools and local government while simultaneously forcing taxpayers to vote tax increases onto themselves.

As I’ve mentioned, at the heart of the “vote yourselves taxes” referendum explosion is the GOP platform. But they could not pull this off without the full support and influence from the White House. Here, President Bush has diverted over $318 billion dollars during the past three years from our domestic programs to the debacle in Iraq. Spread out over the population and divided by the fifty states, Wisconsin has been shortchanged almost $6 billion dollars in Federal aid to schools, roads and job creation. This shortage of Federal money is also fueled by taxcuts to select (wealthy) individuals.

Unfortunately, the nature of the GOP's federal domestic program assistance is so severe that none exist, unless you happen to be a corporation. Had we had not invaded Iraq, Republicans would have used the national deficit as a good reason to withhold hundreds of billions from the American economy. We would probably be where we are today regardless, afterall the Republicans are in charge in Washington and the Wisconsin legislature.

Wisconsin residents have no one to blame for high property taxes but themselves when they vote Republican.

Convince Business of School Needs

Tweet

The Janesville Gazette editorialized that the school board is not doing a good enough job convincing property tax payers voters of needs at the high schools. That is the crux of the problem. I think I can speak for more than a few property taxpayers here that are fed up with being the “go to” guys when schools need money. Our property taxes are plenty high where they stand and it almost seems like the minute our taxes stay flat or go down slightly, it opens a window of opportunity for reasons to spend. Many of the same people who blame the Governor for high property taxes in Wisconsin, are the same ones to gleefully pump up the bill when they’re doing the spending.

Janesville Gazette editorial excerpt:
Administrators are thinking like academics when they might convince more voters if they thought like people in the business world, where capital projects are approved only after managers calculate potential returns on investments.

Why not take it a step further? Why only think like businessmen when you can be convincing them about the returns that school improvements will have upon their profits. The Gazette for example suggested “expert” engineers might be able to state that people are more productive when they work in comfortable rooms. So in the future, the Gazette and other local businesses will have an employee pool that has been appropriately schooled in comfortable rooms. How much is that worth to the Gazette’s bottom line?

Convince the Janesville Gazette (Bliss Communications) about the potential returns of say, a $100,000 investment into the school improvements. Convince home grown multi-billionaires like Ken Hendricks and Jim Fitzgerald to give a couple million dollars each to Janesville schools, afterwards they could go to bat for the district to convince others as well. Convince several medium sized businesses to raise $100,000 for the improvements. Convince Rep. Paul Ryan to earmark $5 million in Federal money not to build a bridge to the North Pole, but to invest in the education of our Janesville youth. Convince major corporations like GM, Target and Wal-Mart to invest into the training and education of their future Janesville employees. Those three should be worth at least $5 million.

Give the students and teachers $70.8 million in school improvements convincing others to risk about $10 million, isn’t asking for too much. Afterall, the school board is asking for much more from those who barely make it, day to day. I think if property taxpayers saw a direct investment from those who benefit the most from our publicly funded schools, they would vote a unanimous YES.

Janesville School District "Stay the Course"

Tweet

Instead of the Janesville School district being upfront about their latest request of $70.8 million dollars in school improvements from the taxpayers, they resort to cheap political tricks, misstatements and outright deception in a promotional flyer designed to encourage a yes vote on Nov.7th.

The only board member to show any common sense about the needs of the schools is Bill Sodemann, once again. Remember, Sodemann was the only board member to suggest breaking the referendum up into several pieces so the voters could accept or reject any or all they choose. But the board decided to go for all or nothing, which I believe is a mistake. I think if they had a provision that would prohibit bringing this referendum back for three years if it fails in November would change their minds.

Sodemann brought up at least five misleading points in the pamphlet, one of them was the 28 cent-a-day cost analogy. The taxpayer may think twice when it amounts to $103 a year in addition to the regular annual hikes in property taxes. Sodemann also said the pamphlet does not mention that expanding the schools will mean adding ten new janitors with salary and benefits costing the District (taxpayer) another $500,000 a year. This would also be in addition to higher energy costs annually to air condition the schools and four new gymnasiums.

”Given that we’re less than eight weeks away (from the vote), I’m not sure if we have time to debate a brochure.,” said board member Lori Stottler. Duwayne Severson said time for debating the referendum is over, and the discord is detracting from the boards objective: to get the referendum passed.
“In the spirit of working together, let’s give it a rest,” Severson said to Sodemann.

Severson tries to pull the old, “united we stand, divided we fall” guilt trip on Sodemann. The school board doesn’t think eight weeks is a long enough time to discuss pressing issues like this? Now is the most important time to debate controversial elements of anything that pertains to the referendum. They are asking for additional taxation through misrepresentation, and Sodemann is the only one standing up requesting to make things right.

Debra Kolste also came to the referendums defense saying that the district’s debt load is low compared to other districts of similar size.

Is that supposed to be some consolation to the taxpayer? The only debt load a property tax payer is concerned with, is their own. I would offer that if the district’s debt load is low that is commendable, and we should strive to maintain that level of fiscal responsibility.

The Janesville Gazette wrote that Lake Geneva and Badger High school district voters approved borrowing for their school improvements, but the amounts were only $7 and $12 million respectively. The nearly $71 million referendum from the Janesville school board is a whopper for a town the size of Janesville.

Also in their Sound Off column, two callers related the school improvements to residential property value. I would think using the referendum effects on home values pro or con to serve as a reason for voting either way is selfish and wrong. You’re better off not voting at all and stay at home on Nov. 7th.