 |
|
| Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us |
|
 |
Sunday, May 12, 2024 |
|
No Tax Increase |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345 6> |
| Author | |||
Hermes 
Prominent MUSA Citizen 
Joined: May 19 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 1637 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 11:09am |
||
|
When it comes to this levy,regardless of what it is renewal,new whatever, how come nobody is capable of figuring out that people can't afford it ?!!!!
No one and I mean no one from the school,the city hall,teachers union ever comes up and says "Can the citizens afford this ?". Correct me if I'm wrong, but a flyer we received stated that on a $100,000 home the levy would cost $575 per year.
I live on a fixed income and so do a lot of my neighbors, who can afford this ?!!! You people are walking around with blinders on ! You make X-amount of dollars and think everyone makes the same or more ! The BOE and school administrators apperantly think of citizens only in dollar amounts !!
When the federal government was bailing out banks and the auto industry I never heard a word from them. I never got a bailout. My house is still unpaid for. No one makes my car payment except me. The executives from Chrysler never called me and said they would forgive my loan. The city of Middeltown says I still have to pay city taxes. They never made me exempt. I don't have half a million dollars sitting in some fund paying me interest.
If the failure of this levy results in the predicted "death" that district officials claim, then so be it. I'm sick of the threats by school & city officials, I'm sick of the propaganda, I'm sick of the rich wanting more for free, I'm sick of a government caring more about industry than it's people, I'm sick of politicians starting wars over nothing, I'm sick of young men coming back from wars lamed, and most of all I'm sick of spoiled public employees who make a great living and want more from a public that can not sustain them !!!!
As for me and my house we will vote NO for the school levy,the public safety levy , the library levy and any other levy anyone cares to come up with !!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|||
|
No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !!
|
|||
 |
|||
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 10:48am |
||
|
The salient argument as I have reread a few arguments Ms. Andrews makes in her Journal column, is it is beter to pass a levy because although your property values are declining rapidly, and its virtually impossible to sell a home in Middletown, the taxpayer must do a "bail-out", and pass a levy, because it will only be worse. The real issues are the city has not performed to reasonable standards and brought business in, and the school system, in spite of previous passage of levies, has failed. It has not brought in new students with new buuldings, new Apple G4's, G5's, and offering quantum physics to those who wish to be aeronautical engineers.
No, the argument is- by gosh, taxpayers, just because The Atrium left, the AK execs left, First Financial left, and countless other businesses, just think how bad it will get if we don't pass the levy?
In reality, a reasonable mind would know the continous leveies thrust our way wiill continue. Passing this levy will embolden the city, decrying "crime is up, we need that public safety levy passed."! And of course, the school system will continue on cruise control, the status quo, aka CI, breathing a sigh of relief no cuts made, we continue on, Johnny and Molly don't have to be pulled out of MHS and we pay $6700. for tuition at Fenwick ir $12,000 for them at Miami Valley School. This isthe same school board who stated they didn't have time to spend for searching for the lone candidate standing for the superintendent job, while paying for a search firm. The same school board whom paid $hundreds of thousands to F,B,&T, making a few associates partners, while fighting an battle which was not to be won with Franklin.
On the contrary, bringing in the state will stabilize Middletow and the school system. They will bring in accountability, fiscal restraint, and get results. They did it in Franklin, and property values did not drop. Does anyone hold passing a school levy will prevent property values from dropping? Economics 101 dictates the law of supply and demand. A poor school district with huge $$$ pumped into continuing to underperform, does not stabilize property valuation. The market does, by demand. Demand is created by: 1) image 2) perception of value, 3) desireability "quality of life 4) Intelligent people making a unique a differentiating character in a community which is better than what is foun elsewhere within a reasonable driving difference.
Results will dictate property values in the city. The school system is tied to the city. the city tied to the school. They both underperform. The notion passing a levy stabilized property values is nonsensical. The school improvement will come from rising performance and perhaps, a change in economics. Throwing $$$ at the levy will have no affect upon valuation, as it will certainly not stir demand. Wasn't that the promise given for building the new school buldings---built them, and they will come? They are built, and they did not come. Keep it simple voters. Demand is based on three things, and three things only: location, location, and location. Passing a levy does nothing to alter tha equation, try as they must to convince you otherwise.
As for the formula....it is what it is. You pay up to a variable 4% increase, highly likely, as property valuation, foreclosure, and the city buys more property with Obama $$$ increases. The best propsect of turning the system around is to bring in those who have expertise to do so, and that's the state. The path of status quo just keeps a bad situation----nothing more than a bad situation. . " '
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marcia Andrew
MUSA Citizen 
Joined: Jan 09 2010 Status: Offline Points: 365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 10:11am |
||
|
Mr. Presta,
I understand the levy we are proposing just fine, thank you. I do not understand why my effort to explain it using an example of round numbers would offend you so greatly. I think we can all agree that school funding is pretty complicated. I have used this example with other people and they have found it very helpful to illustrate the effects in concrete terms.
I agree with you that your hypotheticals are absurd and ridiculous. Even in your "end of Middletown" scenario, you and I, as the last property owners standing, would not pay the entire $18.3 million, would we, because the 4% per year limitation would kick in, before we got anywhere close to that. So, the school district would not collect anywhere near $18.3 in that scenario. Of course, the only children left in the district would be my 3, since everyone else had left town.
|
|||
|
|||
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 9:52am |
||
|
OK--once again, and in 1st grader terms--Mr.Presta's implication that the BOE and levy committee deliberately misled the public about additional cost increases from passage of the replacement levy are totally un-founded and not correct. I am offended, and surprised that Mr.P would make such a statement without have direct evidence to support his claim.
Being present for most of the committee discussion, I can say that the complete effort and desire was to present an honest answer to a complicated ?.
acclaro--I hope that you have an opportunity to read the determination provided regarding the long-range cost of the replacement levy. Then I would like to watch you explain that decision to your group of 5th graders.
|
|||
|
|||
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 9:23am |
||
|
Admittedly, I only got through Calculus III and Statistics III in college, so the complex math formulation may be too complex for most to compute, but Mike Presta has explained it in terms I think a 5th grader would comprehend on using math a 3rd grader is exposed, its called ratio's and percentile. The amount of taxes is a fixed expense, not variable. If the city buys properties with all that wonderful giveaway Obama $$$, no tax burden is paid. Take a peek at the Bell residence parents of Todd Bell on the audit site, and see a redution of about 35-40% below what ohers pay, because its bank owned vs city owned, to comprehend the term "tax rediuction" and its import. As taxes collected decline, which Mike is correctly projecting to occur in the future, associated with an infinite tax burden that must be defeated, the % of tax increase and paid by a property owner. Therefore, it is a variable expense, in contradiction to the fixed amount of funding the city willl receive.
To the property owner in 5th grade terms; you'll be paying more taxes each year cpped at a variable amount annually of 4%, to maintain the fixed amounf to be collected by an underperforming school district receiving among the highest funding in the state of Ohio. Look at New Jersey, who defeated this week, tax levies in the state. They average $19,000. per pupil, he Governorasked for a one year pay freeze, teachers said NO WAY! Entitlement has consequences----its called voters, you will pay a capped 4% increase annually based upon Middletown's decline, while maintaining a fixed rate of income for the school system. So, why did the commercia entities bail, or what happens to you when they bail? You get stuck making up the difference? You find that a compelling reason to vote for a levy? If so, I have some oil sitting in some storage in water in the Gulf of Mexico. I'll sell it to you at a bargain of $5.00 a gallon, but you have to skim it off the top of the water and put it in your own contanier.
This is the cycle Middletown is headed. Next, we have the pleasure of a 2.25% tax rate, making the city among the highest in Ohio, with the worst ambience and amenities. Nice explanation Mike....and it won't raise taxes! Just read and understand the fine print voters. It makes NO very easy doesn't it.
|
|||
|
|||
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 6:57am |
||
|
Mike--if you imply that Ms.A and her committee are mis-representing the longe-range costs of this levy, then I strongly disagree. There was no convenient posturing or twisting of the facts.
I was at a meeting where this issue dominated. Half of the group understood that the levy could increase ccost-wise over time--the others understood the fixed cost to be correct. MS.A was adamant(as was everyone else) that the correct answer be presented, whatever it may be.
The final official decider(I believe county--maybe state) made the final official decision. While the wording sounded like something straight from the Les Landen playbook, it was affirming the "no additional funds" position, and it was somewhat confusing and complicated.
Since this was the answer already in use, and was the answer that everyone was hoping for, it was decided to stick with it. If the opposite answer had been given, the correction absolutely would have bween made.
Yes, Mike--I have known Rev.Tyus for years. He had always been very open and honest in our discussions. Often we agree--occasionally we don't. I like the man, and have no issues with him at this time.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council 
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 2:28am |
||
|
Ms. Andrew: I again apologize for being so blunt in my previous message. It’s been a long, difficult day. I believe the problem might be in the proper understanding of the ORC’s definition of “current property” in regards to property taxes. Nearly any significant event (other than a straight sale or the like) could disqualify a property that was included as a “current property” under a school tax levy after the fact. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending upon one’s point of view) this does not correspondingly adjust the “guaranteed amount” or “fixed sum” of the levy. The remaining owners of “current properties” can be made to pick up the slack for any and all “current properties” so disqualified. If any "current property" is subdivided or developed, it will be ADDED to the tax rolls (that is, it will NOT then be a "current property"!) and will be an addition to the $18.3 million! Please allow me to exaggerate to the point of absurdity for the sole purpose of illustrating this point: Let’s assume that nearly every property owner in Middletown who could do so, filed bankruptcy. Further, let’s assume that every other person in Middletown decided to either leave, or otherwise refuse to pay property taxes, and somehow every property in the city ended up in the hands of some governmental agency (which means that there would be NO property taxes being paid!!!. That is, everyone except you and I, Ms. Andrew. You and I were the only ones who managed to hang in here. Now, I realize this is utterly ridiculous (I wouldv'e probably already headed for an unnamed South Pacific island), but play along. What the law says is that YOU and I, alone, would be responsible for paying our property taxes for this proposed levy (subject ONLY to a 4% cap on the increase in any one year) up to the entire $18.3 MILLION!!! You might not agree, you might not like it, but that IS what the law says. I would cite the section, but on top of everything else, my computer crashed a few days ago and I had to do a full recovery. I have everything backed up, but I have reason to believe that the virus was “backed up” into my external hard drive, so I am uncertain how to proceed, except to start over from scratch. (And that was some of the best news I’ve had recently!!! |
|||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 1:09am |
||
Ms. Andrew: I, too, am trying to be open and honest when posting here!
And the point I was trying to make in our previous exchanges from several weeks ago (but I suggest that you do go back and re-read them), which I guess I didn't make very well, is that this substitute levy CAN, indeed, raise the tax rate from what it currently is combined under the two existing levies.
And please don’t bother to explain simple ratios (or other simple grade school or high school mathematical theory or practice) to me any more, thank you very much! You don’t seem to understand the very levy that you, yourself, are espousing! The FACT is that the District will be guaranteed the AMOUNT, not the RATE! (I won’t insult you by patiently explaining the difference between “amount” and “rate” as if you were a fifth grader. You are a grown woman with at least one advanced degree. If you “don‘t get it,” look it up, or better yet, sue whomever conferred your degree and donate any award to the MCSD.) If properties are removed from the tax rolls for any reason, the District is entitled to collect the same TOTAL AMOUNT from the owners of the remaining properties, limited ONLY by the 4% annual cap on any INCREASE in the RATE required to do so! Please do not try to confuse the issue by saying things such as: “That won’t happen.” or “if that happens, it’ll be the least of our worries.” Another FACT is that the City already has plans to “land bank” quite a number of formerly privately-owned properties within the next few years. The City will NOT be paying property taxes on these properties. This virtually GUARANTEES that the District will NOT be collecting the FULL AMOUNT of the tax guaranteed by this levy at the current RATE! This means that EITHER: the District will collect LESS than the TOTAL AMMOUNT that this levy guarantees; OR: the remaining property owners will be paying MORE TAX (whether by a higher assessed value or by a higher rate, but MORE TAX nonetheless) than they are now! I have already provided some plausible examples of how this may occur. (Such as one of the City's schemes for sub-dividing Towne Mall, which would REMOVE Towne Mall from the tax rolls, return the new, subdivided properties as ADDITIONS to the District's guaranteed FIXED SUM, and raise the remaining property owners' taxes to make up for the loss of the present Towne Mall.) Another, more recent, example would be the attempted three-way swap boondoggle that was about to occur recently. The Strand and adjacent properties will be OFF the tax rolls, as usual the remaining taxpayers (also known as the "bagholders") must pay enough additional tax to maintain the District's FIXED SUM, and any new development will be ADDITIVE to the tax rolls (and to the Districts cashbox.)
If you STILL don’t understand, perhaps you should ask a tax attorney, but do so quickly, as YOU are about to vote on an issue of which you seem to be completely ignorant.
Please excuse me for being so blunt, but time is growing short, and the PEOPLE deserve to be told the TRUTH!!! |
|||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|||
|
|||
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 28 2010 at 10:34pm |
||
|
Ms. Andrews, while I am certain you are a delightful person, and an excellent 'av' litigator, you on many occasion, end a start of a compelling migration towards discaring facts to your side on effort, by attacking always, the "others." I assume that is bred into a strong advocate, but it respectfully takes from your point t be made. In your statement, you reference the "bitter" personal attacks" from those who oppose levies. Always the fault of those whom ascent is coveted, but when disagreement is apparent, its the others personal attacks. No one on this site has made personal attacks, and I recall a few harsh words directed from Smartman at those who saw no wisdom in pulling the 'yes' ballot entry. It really undermines the effort, and that's constructiv criticism.
Smartman, as for constitutionality, unconstitutionality, your point is indeed moot. The Ohio Supreme Court are not legislators of law, they interpret and apply the law. In 2005, they affirmed the cases which continued after countless mediation and effort to comport to "equal funding" and other interpreted inequalities be set aside, no more hearing before the Ohio Supreme Court. Indeed, the city of Middletown has more funding per student, than most school districts in the state of Ohio. To wit, the unconstitutionality argument you advance was directed at schools which received less adantage and accompanying funding, than the city you advocate is in desprate need to continuing funding.
Turning to sj, thank you for your comments, my point regarding Dr. Rasmussen was quite simple: he stated there to be a direct coorelation between the city's success and movement forward, and the success of the school system. It is a direct coorelation, not inverse. Therefore, funding the school district does nothing to rectify the city's problems, as Dr. rasmussen alluded (cause and effect- direct proportional coorelation). Ergo- throwing money at the levy does nothing positive, because the city's problems continue. Its like pouring water in a bucket filled with holes. For every gallon put in, the city holes seep through the water, ie, $$$, and its perpetual waste. Until the city moves forward, on a projectory towards bankruptcy, then the school levy will not make a dent in performance. The levy benefits the status quo, keeping overhead in place, and protecting the programs the top 10% desire such as AP, et al, then they move to Cornel, Bucknell, and never set foot in Middletown again.
For those on the fence, tragically, the city's mismanagement has led to perpetual cried of levies which will never cease. Money is not going to fix the problems, as the city has self inflicted so many wounds, its beyond repair and atonement. As Mr. Presta aptly stated, the trend line will be maxing the 4% increase, as property values decline, and the city continues on its path of self destruction. No golf course, no east end, no buying a mall, no tearing down all the 'brownfields' in the 600 sq miles which encompass Middletown, will alter that.
Middletown is one of the top funded districts in the state, it is the basis for the argument of unconstitutionality set forth in 2001, as it received such abundant funding, and yet, underperforms. Simply because Ms. Andrews and others don't want to be burdened by the levies and the lack of support, the apathy, which is a plague inflicting the city for many decades, a levy without limits, should be funded.
26% is simply an overhead number. Undoubtedly, we all know the school system in Middletown and the state, is laden with layers of overhead. Its time to slay the dragon, and then confront the one at city hall. The only union today which hasn't been impacted by down-sizing, operational improvements, is the school system and the state/ federal government. While others espouse the levy is critical for saving Middletown, the other dimensional element linked as one, is the city, a failing embodiment set on a path for bankruptcy, awaiting the Phoenix to rise called SunCoke. AK knew this, the Atrium knew this, so did Square D, First Financial. For those that can't escape Middletown, are trapped like quicksand, are you honestly buying this argument, and willing to pay more, while the 'smart" ones left? I don't think so. You know better.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marcia Andrew
MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jan 09 2010 Status: Offline Points: 365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 28 2010 at 9:51pm |
||
|
Spider, I think you are giving me more credit than I deserve (good or bad) on this levy campaign. Not all the volunteers come to the meetings. A parent of a Middie grad/spouse of a teacher is in charge of our two door to door literature walks, working closely with a central office administrator. Another parent from Mayfield is coordinating the telephone calls (live people, Vet, not computerized) that are being made this week. A team composed of a part-time tutor, a parent, a teacher and a central office administrator are handling mailings to all voters who pull an absentee ballot. Other parents have been managing yard signs and speaking at evening shows/award nights at the schools. I have relied greatly on Debbie Alberico.
I am chairing the levy campaign effort, but only because no one else wanted to step up to that responsibility. This is symptomatic of the city in general, not just the schools. It is also one reason, in addition to many I've already posted, why we opted for a continuous levy. Each time we have to run a levy campaign, the well of volunteers runs drier. People are burned out, and don't want to face the bitter, sometimes personal attacks from those who oppose tax levies.
Marcia Andrew
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marcia Andrew
MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jan 09 2010 Status: Offline Points: 365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 28 2010 at 9:40pm |
||
|
Mr. Presta,
Thank you for the kind words. I am trying to be open and honest by posting here.
The point I was trying to make in our previous exchanges from several weeks ago (i have not gone back and re-read them), which I guess I didn't make very well, is that this substitute levy does not raise the tax rate from what it currently is combined under the two existing levies.
Could the rate fluctuate slightly in the future? Yes, but the rate doesn't matter with a fixed sum levy. If your property value goes down because all property values in the district have gone down, you will still pay the same proportional share of the levy, but it will be a higher percentage of your property value. But the dollars you pay will stay roughly the same.
Take the example of a school district with 10,000 properties each with a tax value of $1000. Total tax valuation of the district is $10,000,000. This district passes a fixed sum levy of $1 million. Each property owner pays a tax of $100, which is 10% of its assessed value. Recession comes along, all properties in the district are re-assessed at a value of $900 each. Each still pays $100 on the fixed sum levy. That $100 now represents 11% of its assessed value, but the dollar value of the tax paid by the taxpayer has not changed, and the dollar value collected by the district has not changed.
Marcia Andrew
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 28 2010 at 9:13pm |
||
|
 |
|||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|||
|
|||
|
Smartman
MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jun 14 2008 Status: Offline Points: 299 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 28 2010 at 8:17pm |
||
|
The State Supreme Court deemed that school funding was unconstitutional. We attempted a state wide campaign on petitions in 2007 to force the state to assume the responsibility for school funding. We fell short of the number of signatures needed. Maybe now is the time to try again. Hope you neice had a good time on the trip.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill
MUSA Citizen
Joined: Nov 04 2009 Status: Offline Points: 710 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 28 2010 at 8:00pm |
||
|
well, my niece was on that Myrtle Beach trip and is definitely not in the top 10% of her class!
Smartman, while I will be voting YES, I think it's convenient for teachers to always blame Columbus for the gridlock on funding. How about if the state teachers' union proactively came up with measures in negotiations to reward merit and punish poor teachers? Why must we face situations where if levies fail, the things that get cut are bussing, sports, and younger teachers but NEVER the older ones, many of whom wish things were done the old way and are resistant to change and, therefore, part of the performance problem?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Smartman
MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jun 14 2008 Status: Offline Points: 299 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 28 2010 at 7:33pm |
||
|
Spider, I could not agree more. A rge formal campaign manger for the past levies, this is Ms Andrew's campaign. But that is ok. It is important that it passes for the students and also for the community. Should it have been a renewal? Maybe. Its been on the books since 1985. Its 26% of the operating budget. Thats huge.
I just returned from Myrtle Beach with 50 of the finest students that I have ever had the opportunity to associated with. They funded the trip themselves. To some thsi may be the only opportunity to ever leave Middletown. If the levy fails the program that they are in will no longer exist. The program gives the exposure to scholarships and many other educational opportunities. Oh did I mention that these students are in the top 10% of thir class!
Look I know that we all get on here and voice concerns I do agree with many points. All I'm asking is that you consider voting yes. A no vote punishes the entire community. If we really want to change things, then vote yes and then form a group to go to Columbusan protest school funding. Thats the real problem. I would be willing to lead the charge.
Ok, now just go ahead and kick me in the balls and and tell em how stupid I am. I'm ready.
Ready set kick boys!
One final thought, maybe if Mr Wills have won the T-shirt battle and got his way, maybe he would be a supporter! lmo
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 28 2010 at 6:43pm |
||
I am quite surprised that you have not yet met the former President of the Board of Education, Rev. Tyus!!!
  Where I feel the campaign to pass the levy (in fact, ALL campaigns to to pass ALL levies in Middletown) has gone wrong is in underestimating the intelligence of "the people".
Every campaign brings out weasel words, misstatements, innuendos, half-truths, omissions, misdirection, and sometimes even outright lies. It’s as if either the high-and-mighty feel that we “little people” can’t handle the truth, or they think that we are too stupid to recognize it when we are not being told the truth. Or, perhaps they feel that their issues cannot bear up under the light of the truth? Look back in this very thread. Witness the long, verbose exchange between Ms. Andrew and I wherein she began with the position that the “rate” of taxation under this levy could NOT rise, while I maintained that it could. It was like pulling teeth to finally get her to admit that the rate “could fluctuate slightly”. I can cite the ORC section where her “slightly” is defined as “a maximum of 4% per year” under certain conditions. I am not trying to pick on Ms. Andrew--she seems like a fine lady, and more courageous than most public officials. The point is that it always seems to end up appearing that they were trying to hide something, and if they were trying to hide one thing, well, how do we know what else there is that we did not discover? Look at all of the bull that Mr. Price, supported by his willing accomplices on the Board and in the administration, tried to feed us. Much of what he tried to sell was actually insulting! Why not be HONEST, and if arguing the actual merits of the honest facts cannot pass a levy, then maybe, just maybe, it SHOULD NOT PASS. Just as when liberals pretend to be conservative (or vice versa) on election day, if the truth must be twisted, or even abandoned, to get enough votes to carry the day, it SHOULD fail!!! |
|||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|||
|
|||
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 28 2010 at 4:37pm |
||
|
I have remained quiet for a while, following the conversation.No point in trying to change the minds of the regulars here, and I respect their thinking(which I have followed for years now).
As mentioned prior, I have a much better opinion of Ms.Andrew after spending a couple of evenings with her at pro-levy meetings. She comes off much better face-to-face, and does actually listen to outside thinking. It has been a pleasure working with her. This is HER levy--make no mistake. She has been in complete control from day one, keeping her circle very small. It has been interesting to work with Ms.Alberico, Ms.Faenke and Mr.Packert also. I have no doubt as to their sincerity and commitment. During this time, I had no contact with other faculty,parents or students(which I thought to be somewhat odd).
I now wish that this replacement levy was for a shorter time frame--in the 3-5 year range in order to see how the new super interacts and if the current academic situation improves. But this is permanent(is anything REALLY permanent?), and imo is still the far best option now available.
I am not disagreeing with many things mentioned by Vet. I think like him on many of these issues, though with a different conclusion. acclaro is a bright person, who totally lost me in his last two postings.
Everyone could use a break from their current tax liabilities. We also have a poorly planned and marketed library levy(non-essential), and no doubt have municipal levys down the road(public safetey, streets, etc.)
Tax revenues are down. No surprise--most business income has dried up, and companioned with a lack of personal income. There is no transfusion coming any time soon.
Still--we have a local school system to operate, newer schools to feature, and a student base in dire need of proper educational opportunities. We MUST make them feel wanted and encouraged. To lose 26% of current funding would be devastating. EVERYONE understands this. A possible state takeover after resulting levy failure is a very crappy option imo.
We must lay the framework for the proper turn-around improvement in the Middletown school system.
We must properly fund the system. Do we have the right people operating the system and teaching the students? I hope so. Virtually everyone that I have met during this levy campaign has been someone that I have enjoyed, and that seems totally committed and capable of moving our system forward. Those that are not committed or capable can be easily purged, and that must also happen. We can replace school board members,administrators and teachers easily until we find the right mix. We cannot replace our structures, students or their parents. Instead, we must suppliment them mentally and financially.
Many assume that IF this levy passes, we will quickly return to business as usual, with new contracts providing the sos as far as raises and personel increases. I sincerely doubt that this will be the case.
A long-term public commitment through levy passage should well be the call to increased expectations as far as effort, cost containment, much more open public feedback/involvement, and the resulting improvement in academic performance. And in no way do I mean baby steps, or the kind of rationalizing that we have heard for years.
We must show confidence that things can and will improve. I don't see any other rational approach. If we anticipate things to drop lower and sink this levy, then things will definitely sink to a level far below acceptability to anyone.
So--the cost should roughly be the same, and we will shed the typical hypocrasy associated with every other "emergency" levy that we have watched evolve into something permanent.
We need to get this right as a community.
And when it is done, we must continue as if we are constantly working to impress everyone with performance, both financially and academically. A positive levy result will be tested daily, and measured by the public. Any return to the "old way" will be un-acceptable.
I realize that my posting is not the most warm/fuzzy type that you usually read in the local letters and elsewhere, signed by some local figure as if their endorsement means something above and beyond.
Spiderjohn is Everyman--a composite of fairness, hard work, family values, and decency to all.
Nameless, as his name is not important. His words and actions are all that truely matter, and they do the real talking for him, and everyone else like him.
So--to anyone out there still on the fence about this issue, I STRONGLY urge you to consider supporting this school levy. Support and the right approach will move us up and forward. It is OUR school system, and we WILL control everything about it through our voting and decisions on funding. Elected officials, administrators and teachers are only here to carry out our wishes. We must steer them in the right direction, supporting them when they are worthy, and eliminating them when they are not.
I hope that you choose the right reasons to vote, and to vote YES on this issue next Tuesday.
|
|||
|
|||
|
LoveToTeach
Outsider 
Joined: Apr 23 2010 Status: Offline Points: 7 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 28 2010 at 3:10pm |
||
|
VietVet,
I don't think that you can say that ALL seasoned teachers are complacent. I also don't think you can say that ALL young teachers are focused and dedicated. I know of many middletown teachers that are seasoned and dedicated to their profession. They are dedicated to their students. Yes, many of them have furthered their education and have masters degrees. I find it hard to believe that someone would not see value in the furthering of a teacher's education. With so much new research in the field of education, how can you settle for a teacher who does not return to school and build on their knowledge as an educator? I would love to see a system that is set up to reward merits and education more so than years of experience. A teacher's own professional development and accomplishments in the classroom are the pride of their craft as a professional. However, I don't see this part of the system changing in the next few years. If the levy fails, I do see a troubling trend that will surface once again. Teachers who are good and can sell themselves elsewhere will leave. They will either not have enough seniority and be let go due to the budget or will be unwilling to stay in a district that forces 35 students into one classroom with very little support. We will be left with more of the unmotivated teachers that can't leave. I have made the point in my first post that there are many good things happening in our elementary schools. I would also recommend listening to Mr. Rassemussen speak... if not meeting him. I don't like the situation at hand. I wish that state funding were better. I have family also living here in middletown that can barely afford what they are paying. I wish that we didn't have to ask tax payers to support a conversion levy. The reality is that we do if we want to have a school system that has the ability to improve. |
|||
|
|||
|
VietVet
MUSA Council
Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 28 2010 at 6:22am |
||
|
You can certainly tell that it is "going to the polls" time here in town. Last night, in rapid succession, received phone calls soliciting our votes for Issue 1, Issue 2 and felt special, until I realized it was a recorded message from none other than Susan Combs from the schools, asking our household to vote for the school levy, citing the standard rhetoric from the pro-levy folks. Susan's certainly earning her pay (isn't she the second highest paid person in the school system behind the super?) Thanks Susan, but I think you're in for a disappointment from our household on your request.
|
|||
|
|||
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 8:05pm |
||
|
Sidebar. And last comment as I am simply repeating myself as are others. Dr. Rasmusen states in his interview "as the city goes, so goes the school district." As the school district goes, so goes the city." Well, for the first point, I wouldn't be a dime on the city, let alone a levy with a YES vote. The school has had its time and chance. Dr. Rasmussen already being honest---it takes time. Anyone willing to wager on how successful Middletown is going to be, with its "bright future"? Its so bright, its facing bankruptcy if the 'public safety' levy isn't passed. Wink, wink.
As the two are interlinked, teethered, who would put any money on Middletown turning around? If it were a company, investors would be suing for fraud under SEC violations. As Dr. Rasmussen stated, "as the city goes, so goes the school district." The city trend line GOES toward bankruptcy. Voting YES does nothing to fix the city's problems which Dr. Rasmussen was so accurately aware. For those on the fence, just listen intently on Dr. Rasmussen's commentary on the direct correlation between the school and the city, and vice versa. The problem is, there are no jobs for anyone in Middletown, and the college grads are elsewhere, with a few exceptions. A most compelling statement was made by Dr. Rasmussen being very honest. The city does not deserve consideration for a YES. They didn't get it from the hospital, from AK sr. management, from First Financial, but expect it from the resident? Truly becoming comical.
|
|||
|
|||
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 7:43pm |
||
|
The infinity circle just keeps continuing. Glad John has a prospect on home purchase. Formulas, cloaked federal "hush" negotiations as if they are qui tam claims, and such, do nothing to bring forth compelling rationale for voting yes. When commercial entities leave, more burden is placed on the tax payer. That is the problem in Middletown.
This isn't rocket science. 70% of money goes to overhead. Unless you are Goldman Sacshs, very private entities could absorb a 70% burden of overhead. These cuts referenced are so minor. Simply look at the numbers of assistant principles, pr Director, and so forth. Its a train gone amuck. It cannot be sustained. As someone stated, if you had a PH.D and wore pants, you could be hired as super in Middletown. Whether the new super wants to buy or not buy is his discretion.
I state this for the last time. For those whom have lived here all their lifes or have huge disposeable income, or rely upon patients and clients, they will vote yes, and have the signs in their yards. Those who believe its civic pride and have a child in the system, better to spread the cost around, so they support it- ergo- Smartman. For those who think and act like a business owner, an investor, and what return is given when there is so much waste and now the city suggesting it may go bankrupt, whe no services are provided,- what signal and message does that send to others whom would want to move to MIddletown? Run like h***.
I think the passage of this levy is about 47-53 for opposed. I vote NO.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marcia Andrew
MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jan 09 2010 Status: Offline Points: 365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 4:52pm |
||
|
Bill, it is pronounced RASmussen. Emphasis on the first syllable, and then "muss" not "muse."
Vet, I realize re-reading my post about negotiations, that I did not make clear that, although no school board member has been on the negotiation team in the recent past, the board members meet with the superintendent, treasurer and legal counsel for the district, who are all part of the team, before negotiations begin and as needed in between negotiation sessions, so that we are all agreed on negotiation strategy, the positions that will be taken and responses to union positions. Ultimately, the board has the final say in voting to approve or reject the contract on behalf of the district. Similar to the union having a negotiation team, but no contract is approved until the union membership votes and agrees to it.
So, the school board is supposed to be the voice of the taxpayer in these negotiations. I realize that may not be satisfactory to you, since you don't always (ever?) feel that the board is on your side, but that is the was the system is set up. Representative democracy and all that.
Marcia Andrew
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill
MUSA Citizen
Joined: Nov 04 2009 Status: Offline Points: 710 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 3:45pm |
||
|
watched the TVM clip of new Super.....is it pronounced RasMYOOSsen or RasMUSSen?
|
|||
|
|||
|
VietVet
MUSA Council
Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 3:03pm |
||
|
Ms. Andrew- once again, a quick response ladened with valuable information for the average citizen. It is much appreciated by myself and, I'm sure others. It is interesting to hear that there is no representation on behalf of the taxpayer included in the negotiations. I don't see where we property owners have a voice and we are supplying the money, either through the state contributions or local property taxes. If anyone should have a major say-so in how much the education people will receive as to bennies, pay, step increases, etc, IMO, it should be a strong representation of the people. How did they leave out on of the most important components in these meetings....the money providers
You are correct. By your description of what transpired in the last negotiations, it would appear that the money-providers had a representative voice at the table, although I'm a bit frustrated knowing that negotiations are not controlled district by district, but rather statewide by the teacher's union. They are not invincible as AK proved a few years ago. The teachers can be replaced by equal, competent ex-military instructors who have taught at military installations. They could also help in the classroom dealing with the discipline issues. We aren't necessarily held hostage by the current "retain the good teachers mentality" are we? Aren't there alternatives? Some, NOT ALL, teachers that have worked their way up to the masters degree and with some years in the classroom become complacent. Personally, I'd rather have a younger teacher with a desire to do well than a "seasoned- tenured" teacher that is just "putting in their time to retirement" or has "retired on the job". Do we have a certain quota of "seasoned" teachers that Midd. is required to keep on staff or could we have a majority of younger ones? We need to break the apparent "stranglehold of demands" that is apparently holding the schools hostage in these negotiations. JMO |
|||
|
|||
|
Pacman
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jun 02 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2612 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 3:02pm |
||
|
|||
Topic Options
)
Marcia Andrew wrote:|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345 6> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.102 seconds.
| Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Site by Xponex Media | Advertising Information |