No Tax Increase
Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Schools
Forum Name: School Tax Issues
Forum Description: Discuss past, current and upcoming tax issues.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2914
Printed Date: Nov 22 2024 at 2:35am
Topic: No Tax Increase
Posted By: randy
Subject: No Tax Increase
Date Posted: Apr 14 2010 at 11:46am
On May 4, 2010, the Middletown City School District has a chance to continue our school PRIDE. This levy replaces two temporary levies that have been on the books for years. The schools are NOT asking for more money. This levy does not raise taxes on current properties. If the levy does not pass, the schools will lose 26% of their income, because the existing levies will expire in December, 2010. These funds are used for academics, teachers and support staff, sports, music and art, honors programs, foreign languages, transportation, utilities, books and supplies, and all the other programs and services necessary to keep our schools working. This levy will help the Middletown City Schools continue its efforts to raise test scores, improve academic achievement, and prepare Middletown’s children for higher education and the work force. Debbie Alberico Community Relations / Communication 1515 Girard Ave. Middletown, OH 45044 513-217-2625 ------------- Call me for a www.CameraSecurityNow.com" rel="nofollow - www.CameraSecurityNow.com quote 513-422-1907 x357 |
Replies:
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 14 2010 at 12:26pm
|
The statement, "won't raise taxes" is not quite correct. It MAY raise your taxes if the revenue source reduces. The school will get their 18 mil by increases in taxes on the remaining sources should the original revenue stream be lost. I noticed that Alberico "conveniently" failed to mention that the levy will be an on-going one with no chance to reverse it by voting, once it's on the books.
Do you really want to give this poor performance an encore by resupplying their failed efforts? If so, why? When do you turn off the money tap on a poor performer? |
Posted By: Smartman
Date Posted: Apr 14 2010 at 7:11pm
Nice statement on you part Vet! You got what you wanted Dr Price is gone. So on that note lets vote the levy down so the new guy starts in the hole of 26% less. Lets vote down so it guarentees nothing will come to town! Lets vote it down so property values drop even farther! Thats OK cuz you are independantly weathy and property values dont bother you! You do not have a child in school that is number 1 in her class because of teachers that care! Vote it down to deny those students that succeed chances to learn more, participate in activities that provide college opportunities. Thats right Vet lets show'em and vote no!!!!! As of this moment those that own homes have no choice but to vote yes. This is our last chance to try to turn this town down. We cant sell our homes and move without losing our asses now. So yeah Vet lets Vote NO! I put you in thge same category as the idiots that are running this town! I'm voting yes because my family has a lot to lose. Vet, too bad you dont have a child in school, you would understand the importance. Just remember in the day like you refer too, folks paid for your education, believe it or not the cost was the same, when you figure in inflation. If it fails, let know what you sell you home for and all you section 8!
|
Posted By: Smartman
Date Posted: Apr 14 2010 at 7:29pm
| Oh by the way Vet, sorry about your experience with Channel 5, my experience was very good, Curtis Fuller is a great guy. Oh and did I mention Lott Tan with ONN, he was at our home 5 times during 2007. Good experience here too!! |
Posted By: rngrmed
Date Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 1:05am
| Smartman, please explain to me how voting for this levy guarantees that businesses will come to Middletown. Also, how voting for this levy will guarantee that my property values will increase. Also, if the levy fails doesn't that mean my taxes will decrease? I've already lost 20k on my house, what's a couple more thousand? Please explain to me how it is always the taxpayer's fault that some business didn't come to town because tax payers are tired of giving their hard earned to the city to waste on their business plans. For example, giving money to Middletown Custom Cabinets. That is our tax money, yet we are buying property for them, giving them money to move, yet our houses are being forclosed on with no help. Our streets are in disrepair and I only hear some talk. 122 has been started, but now it is stopped with no signs of work in months from the Dixie Hwy intersection. Will voting for this levy fix any of this? Will the schools continue to waste money in some stupid landgrab and they tell me they are broke? |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 7:56am
Big difference Smartman when people paid for my education and today. Back then, the people got something for their money- performance and a well established, credidible school system. The schools were actually worth the money back then. Don't have that today. Oh, by the way, I'm a home owner too so I'm suffering on devaluation with the rest of the owners. As to being independently wealthy??? Is that why I'm still working at age 61, with at least 8 more years to go, giving me a total of 51 total working years before I can even think of retiring? Price is gone....so what....it's a lousy school system now with or without him. It was screwed up before he came on board, during his time here and is still screwed up after his departure. Won't change until the people change what they are currently doing. Until they change, what is the purpose in financing their failed ways? Those that own homes have no choice but to vote yes???? What? Hate to burst the bubble on your theory, but here is one homeowner who will vote no until they give me some performance improvements. Oh, I did have a child go through this school system in the 80's/90's. Wasn't worth a crap then either. He's doing much better in college, no thanks to the educational experience he received in the Middletown schools. I was surprised he wanted to continue his education knowing the handicap he was under in this school system. It's going to take a lot more to turn this city around than to finance a mediocre school system, by the way. The Middletown school system has created, on their own, a poor performing reputation. It has not come because we didn't fund the schools. He--. we built you new elementaries a few years ago. Latest technology was going to turn it around they said. Where's the improved performance we were told we would get from these schools? Go ahead and vote yes. If you are content with the current state of affairs and want to reward below average results, that's your choice. Don't understand the logic, but have at it. Now, you go out and have yourself a nice day, Smartman! 
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 8:01am
Smartman- Who in the he-- is Lott Tan at ONN? Didn't have Curtis Fuller from Channel 5. Had Karin Johnson at the house. She contacted us for a follow-up visit and I told her no. Didn't like her lack of coverage from the anti-levy side of things. Glad you had good experience. Apparently, they must really like you pro-levy folks. After all, voting for all levies is the popular thing to do in some circles. Good for you! 
|
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 9:55am
|
smartman is correct.
we do not need to go backwards, especially to this degree.
factor in the potential increase in potential polarization, cuts, threats and negative pub(though failed levys are hardly news), and we will go backwards.
YES is probably the only positive constructive answer, then hope for the education machine to move in the right direction with the new leadership. How else can you view things if you want any progress.
A lot of help from parents would be the biggest boost.
I was an original supporter of the Dolly Parton Imagination Library.
I am glad to see it working so well.
MCF got this one right.
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 10:29am
|
Vet, your column (blog) answering the Section 8 issue is appropriate to why the levy must be defeated with a NO vote. Lets face it, for thoe with youngsters in school, its always the answer they wish to have---everyone puts skin in the game aka money $$$, that reduces their cost, and so they push the levies.
Sj, while acknowledging your strong argument on the Section 8 dilemma undermines the issue on the levy and his position. In reality, taxes will go up, as property values continue to decline, ED deosn't bring in the revenue as you said and sj agreed, and the existing base of tax payers get stuck paying more. As those outside Middletown will be fully aware of this dismal system, they will be even less likely to buy property in Middletown, so the cycle continues. As less people buy, and property values decline, exiting residents will see a tax increase---that's the reality here.
This tax levey isn't about having plenty in the work force, there are absolutely no jobs fo people, other than pumping gas at the 2nd shipt at Marathon or BP. Hence, the issue is not there is a voud in educated graduates, the void is no ED and no desire for others to move to Middletown.
sj's confirmation of agreement with you on 8 completely undermines the support he gives: we have a new superintendant (wow- hurray-lt the bloons drift through the air), while keeping the overhead in place with no cuts. Do you know how many $ Bb these school pension funds are already behind across the US? The system is exactly like the US Postal Service with results to match.
VOTE NO because it will do nothing to elevate scores, put protect wages, just lik the public safety levy did nothing to improve public safety and reduce crime. It won't get worse in Middletown: individuals will be more impressed the residents remained other than those with life-time resident cards, have taken a tsand, and said we are going to get this fixed. Your section 8 comment made the absolute best argument fpr defeating the school levy VET. As ED has not done its job, and Middletown has such a tarnished image, all property owners will end up paying more and more. Why do you thinh AK and the Atrium left---for the reasons you cited. The facts weigh heavily on the NO scale, not YES. In fact, there is no justification for YES, other than wanting to keep a failing system in place without making adjustments. When they cut about 40% of the overhead, which by the way, would take care of the Algebra books as Ms.Andrew referenced, its time to vote factually and logically, and not because another wants his/her costs reduced by amortized expense. Springboro has shot down at least 2-3 of these, and their rating is still EXCELLENT.
VOTE NO.
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 10:32am
|
Spider- if you're at the bottom you can't go much further down (backwards). Your statement about voting yes, then HOPING the education machine (which is currently broken in this town) will move in the "right direction" with new leadership.......I believe we taxpayers have heard that phrase before .....you know, the old "just approve this levy"....."help us make the change we need to succeed" routine. "Just give us new elementary schools with the newer technology and that will help us achieve better results". Remember that when they were pitching the bond issue to build the new schools a few years ago.
No, I'm sorry to disagree with you on this as I know that you are passionate about getting your levy passed, but "it is what it is" and "it is" not worth plowing more money into it on top of what we have given them over the last 25 years, just to maintain the status quo/business as usual unsatisfactory results. The school people need to show something....anything in an upward trend toward positive improvement to justify what they are currently asking for. Too many times, we have given them what they want on a promise that never materialized. It is time to bring this thing to a boil and cut off the money tap. Some of us have had enough false hope of progress that has always resulted in disappointment. This levy is rated 
|
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 11:30am
|
come on--I am backing this because I honestly think that it is the only constructive direction to take.
A rejection resulting in a 26% loss of funding would be catastrophic, and hardly needs to be explained in detail to those here who follow issues much closer than the majority.
Majority rules--if this levy goes down, then it goes down. I can accept the result, and will not be there this time to fund certain programs.
Honestly--if the library pittance passes and the school issue fails, then I truly don't understand the local mindset. The cavalier attitude expressed by the library board and their wishes, the expectation of emergency legislation of a tax issue, and the inappropriate comments and suggestions made by Council rep/board liason Mr.Picard really affected my thinking on this issue. This is a non-essential service in a time when priority services are struggling. The library can wait.
Section 8--I missed the meeting. I like Mr.Bohannon,Mr.Tracy,Mr.Faulkner and anyone left out, though their money train must no longer stop as often in town.
Tuesday's Council session should be very interesting.
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 11:56am
|
Hey sj, you'll have to understand my training to appreciate the debate, but if one were to pply your logic, Section 8 should grow, because the only to attract more residents in through Section 8, and otherwise, more houses and apertment units would be vacant, therefore bringing property value down. That is precisely your argument on the school levy. How would the failure of a school levy be more or less catacropic than houses sitting idle, with weeks and broken windows surrounding the exterior? You cannot say yes to one in a factual debate and say no to another, as both have the same argument. I disaree the negative results of the school levy would have further negative consequence than already exists. It might stir those sitting in Donham to do their job in ED, and save those already seeing a serious decline in valuation save money.
As Pacman makes a good point, the section 8 situtaion and the school ar directly intertwined, as much as one on ocassion, would want them seperated. If you increase section 8, which will occur for the arguments its better to have houses occupied than sitting idly, has a negative impact upon school performance. if you accept the notion the socio economic dimension negatively impacts school performance. That's the argument the school board has used.
In sum, you are correct: section 8 exacerbates a bad situation and by voting YES, we all absorb more tax burden as an outcome. You cannot bifurcate the two issues, they are completely intwined. As there is no stopping 8, using your argument others have made,, better to have section 8 renters and houses occupied, because of that benefit outweighing the detriment from homes sitting idle, as VET so accurately stated the solution then to be an ED problem. You can't have your argument both ways, as the logic in section 8 is actually more compelling than voting yes on the school board levy.
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 1:24pm
|
Spider- let me approach this from another direction, if I may. Given that you are a businessman, and given the fact that you know what it takes to run a successful business, making a profit, and, given the fact that to run a successful business, you know that you need employees who perform in a working environment and you know it must operate while watching costs, inventory, employee performance, customer satisfaction, facility costs/maintenance, taxes, transportation costs, etc. I have a question for you.
Knowing what you know about the Middletown School System (in the business of education) as to facilities, manpower costs, academic performance, customer (citizen/taxpayer) satisfaction, and overall returns for the money spent, would you buy this system (if it were a business) as it is operated today? Or, would it be considered a risky investment for you as a business owner and you would want to see some changes made to reassure you that you were getting something for your money? For me, there are too many negatives to contemplate putting any of my cash toward purchasing or as a partial owner. In it's present condition, it is not a purchase or money investment option. I don't wish for my tax money to go toward what we have now. |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 1:36pm
|
Hey Vet if the schools were run like a business and the government butted out, it would be far more successful than it is currently. Between the Feds and the State the system is screwed up, then you have the unions to deal with, recipe for disaster right there, which is exactly what we have currently. Don't even get me started on some of the parents and lack of discipline in the schools. |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 1:50pm
|
honestly--it is acombination of everything mentioned above, then wrapped up petfectly with pacman's close.
acclaro--my thinking/direction doesn't really fit where you are trying to pigeonhole me into a corner.
I am not tying section 8 to the consequences of levy passage or performance(while I have consistently addressed the performance issues).
Section 8--Council
School levy--BOE
When it comes down, I prefer to take a chance with possible improvement coming through the schools before I trust Council/Admin to willing move in another direction. I no longer like dealing with the city--talking with the city--watching the city in action--and want no real activity with them. I do want to put some hope and positive direction in the lives of the students(I know--sounds hokey and cliche'd).
We all aren't that far apart as to our thinking. |
Posted By: Smartman
Date Posted: Apr 15 2010 at 3:54pm
|
Well said Spider. The city is failing us. Just look around. The schools can be the bright spot for this community. That's why we need this levy to pass. We have a new leader even if it is by default. We need to give him a chance. He is from a situation very close to ours, maybe his new blood will make a difference. Lets dont let him start with half a deck. As for performance it is very hard for teachers to teach to a test, then have have the state change it every year. Hopefully a new leader will have new ideas to get parents involved with their childrens education. That is the first step in improving performance.
We all agree with each other and disagree on other points. There are many positives in MCSD. Having a daughter at the high school and being involved in her activities, I see more good than bad. Unfortunately the students that dont care, have no support system at home are the ones that are bringing down the scores. I agree with Spider, if I'm going to take a chance, let it be with the schools.
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Apr 16 2010 at 9:16am
| Don't a convincing argument. The city could say th school system failed the city, and if results were EXCELLENT, more residents would mov in, and the city could do more. I said they are both intertwined, and without addressing BOTH, you are guaranteeing continued failure. Section 6 feeds the problem in the school as I hear often. sj states he believes those kids will improve. Smartman says the school district can be a beacon of hope. Well, that beacon of hope was tried for 7 years or greater, and isn't shining bright---that is an undeniable fact. It is impossible to address the school problems without addressing low income, section 8, and the other enormity problems Middletown has. Passing this levy does nothing to address that problem, and if it were a beacon, we'd have more residents wanting to move in, than move out. As property values will decline, we are all left with paying higher taxes in spite of the "it won't raise your taxes", associated with decline in valuation. Its that simple. "Maybe" new blood will fix the problem Smartman? As section 8, using your analysis, the scores will be in a circuitous CI mode. Sometimes its better to trust the "devil" you know than the devil you don't. With the waste apparent in the schools and everyone agreeing low score from those less fortunate are impacting performance, we are back to where we started: throwing good money will not alter a very bad situation. |
Posted By: TudorBrown
Date Posted: Apr 16 2010 at 1:19pm
I'm having a hard time with this one..... I'm thinking Yes.... 
|
Posted By: rngrmed
Date Posted: Apr 17 2010 at 1:24am
|
As much as I think the parents should be held accoutable, lets not give students a free walk either. Even though their parents are on Section 8. There are plenty of opportunities to be had. My mother was on welfare growing up and I made a decision I wasn't living like that. The couselors at the high school never told me or gave me any information about college, how any of it worked, nothing about student loans or grants. I had to find out for myself. Some of the kids on Section 8 might try a little harder if they knew there were some opportunities available to them. |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Apr 21 2010 at 12:32am
Help me understand your views here, please.
Given all of the logic of the
The MCSD, as of the last complete school year, ranked 592nd out of 610 districts in Ohio. It simply is not possible to go much farther backwards. ------------- “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 wrote:Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Apr 21 2010 at 7:35am
|
Hopefully not MORE money Mike--but you don't read me saying that it won't happen.
You have seen what happens when these BIG financial hits happen.
Ity is ugly and stressful for everyone.
I heard that we were rated 595 out of 615
Hopefully the new Super will make a difference much more posirive than the last super,
I am not in love with any of this, however I don't honestly see a better realistic option.
I am mostly concerned about the lack of organized support from the teachers,parents and students.
Seems that they should be leading this parade instead of a few board members and private citizens.
If our teachers won't support this, then MAYBE we have the wtrong group of teachers.
Still--if we don't pass this, what better options and direction do you see or can construct?
I am voting YES on this one issue because I honestly believe that it is the logically correct choice.
It pretty much has to be.
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 22 2010 at 7:03am
| Spider- the levy approval and a yes vote is the "most logical choice"? It "pretty much has to be"? After over 30 years of watching the Middletown schools wander aimlessly, adrift at sea, with no upward positive indications that it will ever change, what would re-gifting them the money, do for us? We all know that the pro-levy people are predicting that there will be rampant disease and pestulence, the roof will collapse and Rome will burn if the levy isn't passed, but how about you pro-levy people telling us what we can expect from this school system if it does pass. What gives us any indication that things will be different this time around if we continue to give them more money to operate the same way they have been operating for 30 years?????Have they even attempted to make any radical changes after all these years? NO. Have they listened to the message about what the people expect from the schools that they are paying for? NO. Have they continued on the high salary/teacher's union dominated negotiations path all these years? YES. Do they continue to carry positions within the school system that are not needed like the "school spokesperson"- Alberico and multiple assistants? YES. Spider- isn't it time for the crap to hit the fan? Isn't it time to force a change, because you know as well as I, the education people haven't/won't change their little safe haven of operation on their own. Isn't it time to just let the state have it, strip it down to the bare essentials, gut the people who won't change and start over in the school's reconstruction? Whether the levy passes and the schools continue the decline because they refuse to change or the schools untimately go to the state to run, it is going to be painful to watch. With a state takeover, at least we will see a different group that will come in to run it. Perhaps that can be the change we want.???? We sure won't see it with the status quo. |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 22 2010 at 3:36pm
| Looks like Dennis Newell is taking some shots at the anti-levy people in town. He says we are viewing the kids in the district as failures. Nope, Denny, we never said they were failures, only the system that is attempting to provide them with a decent education. The system is the problem. If there is failure, it is the operation of the current Midd. school system that is the culprit. Nice try, but the age old guilt trip of "blaming the levy opponents" ain't gonna work. Now, you want to use the kids to envoke a response. A new low, Denny babes! Get on the computer- read the results on the proficiencies since it was developed and administered and tell us with a straight face you are still proud of what you have produced. Review the history of the 30 indicators and tell us all how the neighboring schools have achieved at least 50% when Middletown has been stuck at 5 of 30 for years. Then, tell us why that happened and what the proposed plans are to increase the success rate. We won't believe you because you and others have been promising improvement for years with no positive results. Come on Denny-you can do better than this article as to telling the truth. Admit it- it was all written to protect your little educational empire you have built over the years- right? Mercy! |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Apr 22 2010 at 3:39pm
While you are at it Mr. Newell take a look at the failure Middletown has become as far as Discipline also.
|
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Apr 22 2010 at 6:40pm
|
had a very long answer typed, vet
it didn't stick and I was too lazy to copy first
my bad
while you make a few good points(nothing new), I disagree with the conclusion of your thinking.
How many times must you say the same thing?
|
Posted By: tomahawk35
Date Posted: Apr 22 2010 at 10:38pm
I would say as many times as we have to hear the same old song and dance from the school system.
With Pacman's suggestion,we at least we can journey down a new path with assured changes instead of this endless dirt road that doesn't offer any changes.
This new Supt. doesn't offer any new game plan because he doesn't have one,he is just hopping on board with the people who gave him a job
|
Posted By: tomahawk35
Date Posted: Apr 22 2010 at 10:40pm
| My mistake,it was VietVet who made the comment and not Pacman. |
Posted By: Pat
Date Posted: Apr 22 2010 at 10:44pm
|
Vet and Pac...First of all, the discipline policy came from Price and has changed significantly since he has been gone and in all the schools the discipline has changed for the positiive.
Secondly...you show your ignorance because you have no idea what you are taking about when you site OAA scores. Go read the explanation of each category on the ODE website. (Not individual school's results, but what a district has to do to met the criteria.)
Next...you state, "What will be different if we give them more money to operate the schools the same way they have been operating for 30 years?" Well, the levy in question is not for "more" money! And the schools have not been operating the same way for 30 years! Wlhat proof do you have they have been operating the same way for 30 years? Do you even know when the OAA tests were first put into effect?
|
Posted By: 409
Date Posted: Apr 22 2010 at 11:52pm
|
I won't vote yes on this as a permanent levy. Simple solution:
Put it on as a 3 year renewal and it'll get my vote.
This gives us some time to see if changes happen.
While it's doubtful school funding will change, should it happen we're still saddled with a permanent levy.
|
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Apr 23 2010 at 6:16am
They aren't leaders if no one is following!!! ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Apr 23 2010 at 6:34am
Perhaps I wasn't clear. In the past, we have ALWAYS been told that, without more money, we could NOT expect improvement. THAT was THEIR logic. THAT was what THEY expected us to believe.
Therefore, from that it is only logical to infer that with only the SAME amount of money, we CANNOT expect improvement and can ONLY expect to maintain the status quo, AT BEST!!!
Or, perhaps they will admit that they always LIED to us in the past about WHY they wanted more money and that it really wasn't to IMPROVE education??? NAH!! That won't happen.
And since we are on the bottom rung, we cannot fall very far. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 23 2010 at 7:22am
|
OK Pat- I have Journal articles from the 80's that give the surrounding school district comparison on the proficiency scores. Middletown is on the bottom. On the last published report on the proficiency scores, Middletown is on the bottom .....still/again. That's 25+ years to show some improvement, not 30 years- still too long. How many years does one try the same thing and how many lumps on the head does one have to incur before one finds out that it ain't workin' and it hurts when the lumps form? Insanity- trying the same failed approach over and over again and expecting a different result to occur.
You state-"Go read the explanation of each category on the ODE website"-"not individual school's results and what a district has to do to meet the criteria"- Mercy! That's just it, Pat....I have to look at the individual school results- THAT"S WHAT I CARE ABOUT. Sometimes, when you lump all the schools together when compiling data, the poorer ones grade out better than they really are as they are buffered by the better performing ones. I care about individual performance, not school grouping performance. When you group, you dilute. No more excuses about "not using individual school results or what a district has to do to meet criteria"- just GET IT DONE! The bosses (taxpayers in this case) at work don't want to hear excuses....they want you (the education people in this case) to do what is required to get the job done.....or......they'll find someone(new teachers/admin in this case) who will give them (the taxpayers again) what they ask for. Discipline???? Pat, there hasn't been real discipline in the schools for years, since the parents intimidated the schools with their lawsuits for touching their "little angels". They stopped corporal punishment(which works in most areas) years ago. That's when the discipline left the schools. Time outs, taking away priviledges, suspensions are placebos that are not effective. Pain is. Use to be two sources for pain- the Dean of Boys/Girls and when you got home. Now, there is neither. Need that to come back, IMO. Pat, the levy COULD be for more money if the tax base made up of businesses and citizens continues to leave town. That means that the ones staying will have to make up the difference to guarantee the schools their 18 million on this levy. Yes, it could mean more money for us property owners. This is a permanent levy, never to be voted on again. It is a "forever" tax to us property owners and we want to see something new in direction, performance and accountability to the people before we will approve it. Simple as that. No more "business as usual". That ain't cuttin' it anymore. What proof do we have that the schools have been operating the same way for 30 years? Let's see.....if you do the same failed things for 30 years and you produce the same failed results for 30 years, it would indicate to me that there has not been any change at all OR that the changes that have been made in the 30 years have been surface fluff and not had one positive result or we would have been able to measure upward progress that would have made us take notice that we were achieving something. We also would have made strides in satisfying more than 5 of 30 indicators in the last 20+ years. We have been stuck on that number for years. |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 23 2010 at 7:45am
| Spider- "how many times must I say the same thing". At least as many times as Newell, some teachers, the other admin, the supers, some pro-levy-prominent citizens and the school board try to blow crap up the public's rear end. Conversely, how many times are we going to hear the feel good story about how "we need your money to help educate the kids", and then see the disappointing results afterwards? |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Apr 23 2010 at 8:38am
Can you post a link to this new Discipline policy I would be interested in reading it?
|
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Apr 23 2010 at 12:59pm
|
Has the "NO HOMEWORK ALLOWED" policy changed since Price left??? ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Marcia Andrew
Date Posted: Apr 23 2010 at 1:46pm
|
Mr. Presta, there has never been a "No Homework Allowed" policy at MCSD.
In 2007, the policy committee proposed a change to the homework policy that would have said that certain kinds of homework (for example, assignments for practice of skills taught in class, or for preparation for the next class) should not be graded. Other types of homework (for example, papers and longer term projects) could still be graded. NOTHING in the proposed policy change would have prohibited teachers from assigning homework, or giving quizzes in class to see if the students did preparation work that had been assigned--for example, had they read the chapter of the book that was assigned?). The distinction was based on sound educational theory and generally required teachers to think about the purpose of the assignment--why were they assigning it? If it is to test whether and how well the student has mastered the material, it should be graded. Given the lack of parental support in many homes, it can be unfair to grade students on some types of homework. In effect, you are grading the parents and not the students. My son in 7th grade received grades for whether or not he brought pencils and notebooks to class. Some of his classmates came from a home where there was more crack than food, let alone school supplies,
Many teachers and community members, without bothering to read or understand the proposed policy change, immediately opposed it, saying that the district was wrong to eliminate homework -- never mind that the policy did not eliminate homework. More thoughtful critics said that not grading homework would be the same as not assigning it, because no one would do it if not assigned. This criticism may have been valid for some types of homework but not others. There is no way to assign a grade to whether a student read the assigned chapter, unless you give a quiz to test knowledge retained -- and the quiz could still be given and graded.
Based on the response, the proposed change was dropped in 2007 and the homework policy remained in place without change. Now, as then, it continues to be within the discretion of individual teachers whether to assign homework, what type of homework, and whether to grade it. Most assign some, and many assign quite a bit.
Marcia Andrew
|
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Apr 23 2010 at 2:11pm
Mrs. Andrew,
Explain to me concerning your above statements. Why must everyone conform to the lowest standard, when Some fail or can't tow the line to do what is expected of them for whatever reason? Why must the rest of us lower our standards and expectations to conform with those who can not perform or won't? I do not understand this logic.
There is more to Homework that just testing knowledge on a given subject. Doing homework improves ones understanding of each subject, it helps to develop good study habits for later on in your educational endeavors, it teaches discipline and responsibility, etc.
My son who is in the 8th grade is a good example of this, he comes home each night with homework in various subjects. No one is home when he gets home, yet he knows that doing his homework is his first priority unless there is a school function and he does it, EVERY DAY. Then I look at it when I get home.
The answer is not to lower everyone standards, but to raise the expectations and standards of those who continually fall short.
|
Posted By: Marcia Andrew
Date Posted: Apr 23 2010 at 3:24pm
|
Pacman,
I didn't say anything about lowering standards or expectations. I totally agree with you that we should hold students to high standards, expect them to learn the material, to learn a disciplined approach to studying. I agree that homework is important for many reasons. I never said otherwise. Maybe you are not distinguishing between assigning homework and grading homework. I do not agree that it is universally true that if you do not grade homework, no one will do it. I have done loads of homework myself over the years that was never graded and no one but myself knew whether I did it or not. But all that is completely irrelevant, because, as I said, THE POLICY WAS NEVER CHANGED. TEACHERS ARE FREE TO ASSIGN AND GRADE HOMEWORK AS THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE.
My point from the part you quoted is, I don't think that any part of a student's grade for a course should be based on whether they have enough money to pay for school supplies. My son gets 10 points out of 200 for bringing his pencils and notebook, and the kid next to him gets a zero. That's taking away 10 points from that kid just because his parents are poor, or clueless (or both).
Marcia Andrew
|
Posted By: LoveToTeach
Date Posted: Apr 23 2010 at 4:17pm
|
Imagine your child's first day in the first grade. She is so excited to go to school, meet her new teacher and all of her classmates. Sometime in the next month, her teacher tells you about the extra help she has been receiving in reading and math. She has a tutor who meets with her three days a week. Her teacher is able to pull her into small group for extra help on a daily basis, because class sizes are manageable. Your child is succeeding in school because she has people there that are able to help make a difference.
This is a good example of education in our elementary schools. This is a fundamental shift from the times of whole class instruction. In Middletown, we ARE changing in GOOD ways. We are moving away from the one size fits all education. We have adopted a math program, even though it has been criticized by many, has been proven to be effective. Several other school districts have adopted the Investigations program and have seen marked improvement in test scores. This is our first year implementing this program. We look forward to the results that will come in the next two or three years. For the first time since I began my profession, all teachers are involved in professional development in literacy which will reshape how we teach reading in our elementary schools. Decisions are being made to choose assessments which lead to challenging instruction and student involvement in their own progress as learners. There are many great things going on in our elementary schools. I would like to continue moving in the most positive direction I have seen yet in our schools. And let's face it, losing 26% of our operating budget would be a major road block. I vote "yes" for progress, not obstacles! |
Posted By: tomahawk35
Date Posted: Apr 23 2010 at 11:40pm
| Mrs Andrew, While you are on the forum I would like to hear the real reason why the school is asking for a forever tax.? What reason would I as a taxpayer be compelled to vote yes on a system( as been mentioned above) that has shown little forward movement in the past 25 yrs. I surely can't base a yes vote on the reason that there is a new Supt.( no past track record in dealing with a situation that this school system generates).Why not a 3yr levy to give everyone an opportunity to make a sound e valuation on this hiring?. I believe this request is not one that should be presented at this time beause of past performance. We need a more solid foundation to invest our money in. |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Apr 24 2010 at 12:35am
|
Thank you, Ms. Andrew, you are, of course, correct!!! I never should have flippantly given that particular policy a nickname, enclosed in quotation marks, thinking everyone would understand to which policy I was referring when inquiring whether or not it was in force. In fact, I never should have asked at all. Even though I no longer have a child in the district (nor have I had for several years) I should have taken the time to research it for myself instead of trying to save myself the time and trouble by asking here online where someone might have known offhand. By the way, I didn’t find any comment on my post from a few hours earlier than the “no homework” post. Was that something I should’ve been able to look up myself as well? ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 24 2010 at 10:52am
| Well alright! Now, we have John Sauter joining in on the levy endorsement fun. He says they have been working on our trust issues with them. Don't know if you've succeeded as yet. John says there are many new exciting programs in place and they're leaving all the traditional teaching programs behind. It is small group, special instruction, individual responsibility type programs that are now in place. He says the discipline issues have been addressed also. Wonder when we'll see if that is working or not? Some of the data posted by Pacman, I believe, doesn't indicate that it is getting any better. He says there is no increase in taxes as all pro-levy folks say, which, may/may not be true.(See Mike Presta's posts) He, of course, fails to mention that this is permanent and can never be excised from the books on behalf of the property owner. You'll pay no matter how bad things get-forever. John also says they have cut some staff (still waiting on the school spokesperson Alberico to go John-can't we incorporate her "speaking" job into someone else's duties?) And, what about all the multiple assistant principals that have been retained? He says changes are coming and improvement will be made. Oh John.......can we give you money on promises alone? Haven't we been "promised" good things in the past and responded just to find out the new money has been squandered? Wish we could believe that it will improve but you saying it, doesn't make it so. |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Apr 24 2010 at 11:21am
|
Vet--I have been around Mr.Sauter since his time with the fire dept.
I have ALWAYS found him to be of very high moral character and completely honest/straight-forward.
To me, he has never sugar-coated anything, he listens, and cuts straight to the point, and always has.
He has extremely high credibility and has backed up the talk be successfully being chosen as a school board representative. YOU tell ME what is fabricated or spin in his thinking, outside of your version of the situation.
I also find Ms.Alberico ro be competent and necessary.
Mike--you might be chasing windmills on this "No Homework Allowed" premise that you are pushing.
Could you verify the official school system stance where this situation was announced and in-acted?
Let's don't discredit or blow off our new Super.
He may well make a big difference.
Lwt's hope so--all indications point that way(unless you always want to look for the worst case possibilities).
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Apr 24 2010 at 12:33pm
|
It is apparent there is no rationale argued effctively as I have just stayed back and read for the past few weeks, there is benefit. sj states it will be worse, Ms. Andrews says it will be worde. The "catch all" phrases are "it may get better", "lets give the new superintendent" ergo, the new and improved model, a chance. Its humorius argument and presented poorly. I;m a stand up guy sj, have credibility with anyone who knows me, and have facts I rely upon in every decision. Your reference to a retired Fore Chief whom has a wife teach holds no more credibility than a neighbor who wants amortization of expense because his child attends school.
Those who make their livelihood in Middletown, have a relative working in the system, or have a child in the system will vote YES. Those who don't and assess this as a business investment and expect an ROE will VOTE NO. Its realy that simple.
I'm osrry, but I've read and heard enough about "making progress', we are getting there, just give us a little more time. The school has failed and with the other problem mentioned so many times on thos forum, aka Section 8, the correlation between 1 rin hand in hand. The levy would be defeated upon factual basis. Upon a heart argument, lets do it for the kis, its fails. They aren't staying around and no job are available. Lets cut to the chase without spinning and parsing arguendo: the facts don't support the levy and demonstrate waste continues with no to very limited progress. For those embedded in the Middletown society, think it is a crown jewel, they vote yes, its the "civic" thing to do. For those who view the matter as black and white, its an easy decision- voting NO is easily made based upon 10 years or > or promise, never remotely nearing expectation set.
|
Posted By: tomahawk35
Date Posted: Apr 24 2010 at 10:36pm
|
Accaro, You hit the hammer on the head by revealing the bottom line and cutting out all the crap that comes with these levies everytime they want our money. |
Posted By: tomahawk35
Date Posted: Apr 24 2010 at 10:48pm
| I really do want to know the reason why the school feels compelled to ask for this tax to be forever.Is there any takers out there to step forward and answer this simple request?. |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 25 2010 at 9:02am
|
Here we go again, Spider. My post clearly attacks the MESSAGE that Sauter was presenting, not the man himself. I don't care who is delivering your pro-levy messages, the theme seems to be to glamorize the POTENTIAL good things that WILL COME IN THE FUTURE, disregarding the empty promises on the results from money given in the past. It is getting to be a worn out record, Spider, with skips in the grooves and is unplayable. (Using the old 45 record as an analogy, of course) You seem to have an occasional habit of twisting what I am saying. Sauter (and Fiora) are the only two that I care for on the school board. They seem to be the only two that give us an indication that they understand and have a clue about what most of us are thinking concerning our district. Sauter seems to be the only one with a spine when he brought up the discipline issues, although I haven't heard from him in quite a while concerning this topic.
Why on God's green earth, would you think Alberico as spokesperson is necessary? Is there any reason why the school people couldn't incorporate her job duties into someone else's job? We could stand to lose her $80 thou + a year salary in a system that is supposidly strapped for money, couldn't we? Can't anyone else speak for the district when it comes "speakin' time"? Don't have anything against the new super and aren't trying to "discredit" him. Hell, He ain't here yet. Just can't give you pro-levy people anymore money on a "wing and a prayer"-" maybe it will work this next time"- "promises in the dark" scenario. Gotta show us something first. Lord knows, the education people have had enough time and money to do so. Unfortunately, there are no positive results to convince us as yet. |
Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Apr 25 2010 at 10:33am
|
While he seems like a nice guy, I fear the Super is doomed to fail. He only has a three year contract, is not from here, and from what I hear is being very cautious about buying or renting a home. He is understandably afraid of planting down roots and wants a quick exit strategy for his possible departure. I wonder even if he is able to produce modest improvements in three years if, at the end of it, he'll be heading back home anyway after an interesting but frustrating three year Ohio sabbatical. |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Apr 25 2010 at 11:00am
| When I began my career years ago starting at IBM, the saying the first year you were learning the job and the culture. The second year you were starting to gain experience, make a modest contribution. By year 3, the expectation was th had mastered the fundamental procedures and could make an earnest contribution. That is hard in the private sector, where you have control, ; in this scenario, he has no control. I don't understand why he took the position. It would be very difficult for an Assistant (formerly) to come into a new town, a new district, a new state, and expect in 3 years to turn it around. I think he's a token; get the new guy in on a hope and prayer enough "buy" into the notion the new guy deserves a chance. Simply out, that is not compelling. |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Apr 25 2010 at 11:03am
|
Hell Bill, I don't blame him if he is not looking to buy, I wouldn't buy a home here either under the current conditions and city operations. I'd rent with an escape clause if I could. Maybe he can rent Prices home? To buy right now makes no sense for any professional in Middletown. What with the city now hinting at Bankruptcy in 2 years if the Public Safety levy doesn't pass, which I personally won't vote for again. The city needs to go into cutting mode and now not later.
If the new Fire Contract has any raise in it again they need to cut the number of Fire Fighters it will take to pay that raise to the others. This city is going into melt down mode today not 2 years from now.
AJ is out in left field with his lack of understanding on Spending and his lack of understanding on the Section 8 issue, specifically that we have always had 1662 vouchers. He is to inexperienced to be on Council in a city with this big of a mess. He would do well to do less talking at times and more listening and learning.
The city should be in overdrive to cut expenses at every level and now that the scare tactics have begun for the Public Safety levy expect it to continue for the next two years.
|
Posted By: Nick_Kidd
Date Posted: Apr 25 2010 at 11:14am
|
Our new Super doesn’t have to improve our schools or raise test scores, all he has to do is get a few levies passed. If he can get levies passed, he will be given bonuses and a contract extension no matter what has happened about school performance. That was what happened with Price. Some school board members that now blame our failing schools on Price, are the same ones that voted for his bonuses and contract extension. They saw “no compelling reason to change” Supers. Also this all or nothing permanent levy is like going to Vegas and betting everything on one roll of the dice. If they get lucky they’re set for life. The only difference between the schools and us is that if we lose such a gamble, we’re finished. If the schools lose the gamble, they will be back again and again until they win. Let’s vote down the levy and let them come back with a levy that is not permanent. That is the only way we can demand that the schools educate our children. Rewarding failure with a permanent levy will only get us more failure. ------------- Government is not the answer to problems, government is the problem. |
Posted By: tomahawk35
Date Posted: Apr 25 2010 at 10:26pm
|
Well, Since nobody will approach this board and explain why a perament levy is wanted, I guess I will explain in my own opinion.
The ones in charge know that there will be very little or no improvement in the school system in the next 3-5 yrs and the chances of coming back and asking for more money would be a shot in the shot.. Hell, the new Supt contract expires in 3 yrs. and they will be rushing around trying to create another great sales pitch to dislodge more money from taxpayers.
There is no logical reason for this except that they take all of us for total idiots. Well this is one idiot you won't get a yes vote from and I hope more voters will wake up and see this is no more than a snake -oil pitch which it had no value or cured anything.
|
Posted By: LoveToTeach
Date Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 9:55am
|
The reason schools are putting conversion levies on the ballot:
http://www.iuc-ohio.org/pdf/strickland_plan.pdf See page 6. |
Posted By: LoveToTeach
Date Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 10:01am
|
Current formula to calculate tax revenue uses “phantom revenue”
• Currently, when the state calculates how much tax revenue a local school district has, the state uses phony numbers, often referred to as “phantom revenue.” o For example, in many school districts, rising property values do not produce additional property tax revenue. However, the state formula for school aid assumes districts receive additional revenue. This formula is not logical, and it results in many districts being punished because the formula says they have an abundance of phantom dollars that don’t actually exist. Establish an effective system of funding that accounts for local resources • Under the Governor’s plan, the state will no longer ask school districts to pay their bills with phantom dollars • Instead, the plan lowers what local taxpayers are expected to contribute to local schools from 23 mills to 20 mills. o The state will assume responsibility for providing the difference between what those 20 mills raise and the cost of the full range of education resources our students need according to our evidence-based approach. Use of conversion levies will allow districts’ revenues to grow • Districts will have the option of asking voters to pass a conversion levy, which maintains the existing millage on residential property for a district currently above 20 mills. • Districts that use a conversion levy, and all districts whose tax structure already allows growth on 20 mills, will see their tax revenues grow with increased property values, helping schools to keep up with inflation. State share of education funding will reach unprecedented level • In the upcoming two-year budget, the Governor’s plan will take the state’s share of education funding to an unprecedented 55 percent. • When the funding plan is fully in place by fiscal year 2017, the state’s share of local school budgets will reach 59 percent. • Upon full implementation of the plan, the state will have unquestionably met its constitutional requirement to its children. |
Posted By: LoveToTeach
Date Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 10:11am
|
Keep in mind that the state has established an amount just over 5,000 dollars a year to adequately educate one child. This plan establishes this minimum amount, no more than that.
If you look up the rest of the governor's plan, the school districts will be forced to be fiscally responsible and held very accountable for educating every child in their district. Voting No on this levy will reduce per pupil funding far less than the minimum. You could let go of 10 administrators and save only a fraction of what our district will have to cut. This levy isn't about raises or keeping excess administrators in their jobs. It is about meeting the basic educational needs of each child, while providing opportunities for enrichment. (Which is ultimately what we all want- higher expectations and higher student performance.) |
Posted By: Marcia Andrew
Date Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 10:46am
|
Tomahawk, the short answer is that a change in state law on school funding now allows school districts to be honest about the fact that there will always be a need for a basic level of funding for the schools. If the need will always be there, and voters generally approve renewals that don't ask for new money, then why go through the disruption and bitterness and distraction from learning that happens every time we have to ask the voters to renew levies to continue the existing funding level?
Longer answer: School tax levies do not increase with inflation. When property values rise with inflation, the taxes collected by schools do not rise. But, the costs of operating schools definitely do rise. In the past, school districts that needed more money due to inflation had to go to the voters with short-term levies that the legislature called "emergency" levies, because (as the post from Love to Teach refers to) if the levy was put on as a permanent levy, it would reduce the amount of dollars the state contributed to the local schools, due to the complex, irrational funding formulas (and the local schools would not end up with the full benefit of the local property taxes paid by residents).
But "emergency" levies could raise additional funds without reducing the state contribution. So most districts in Ohio put emergency levies on the ballot, even though there was no emergency--school boards knew the need for more money was coming, and they knew that the need for the additional funds was not temporary. These are operating expenses that repeat every year (salaries, utilitites, fuel for buses, etc) not one time expenses. Prior Middletown school boards did not say there need for the funds generated by the two expiring "emergency" levies was temporary, although I can understand how a voter might assume that from the word "emergency."
A recent change in state law allows a "continuing" levy which has no fixed number of years, but the revenue from the levy will not be used to reduce the state share of funding. This substitute levy is a fixed sum levy, so if property values go up, the amount collected by the district will not go up. The district could benefit if NEW construction or development occurs, those properties would be taxed a proportional share that would be in addition to the fixed sum. Given Middletown's economic situation, we do not expect the levy to generate much additional revenue as we don't expect much new construction or development in Middletown.
The school board has been aggressive in cutting costs and controlling expenses, cutting at least $5 million out of the budget in the last 4-5 years. That includes eliminating more than 12 administrative positions and at least 20 support staff, becoming more energy efficient, renegotiating third-party contracts, and many other examples. However, despite all those efforts the budget has basically remained flat, because of pay and benefits, which amount to more than 70% of the budget. No Child Left Behind Law basically requires all teachers to get masters degrees within a few years of starting out. This was laid on top of the universal, long-standing salary structure for teachers that gives step increases for increased education and additional years in service. So, even in years where there is a salary "freeze" (no increase in base salary), the payroll cost to the district still goes up as some (but not all) teachers hit a new salary step. We have been dedicated to careful spending, yet I cannot foresee the operating needs of the district going down. The best we can do is to keep them flat.
So, the continuing nature of the levy has nothing to do with the new superintendent or the length of his contract. The fact that you and others on here want to complain that he "only" has a 3 year contract just leaves me frustrated. To start with, 3 years is standard. If we agreed to a longer contract and he didn't work out, you all would be yelling and screaming about how irresponsible it was for the board to tie the district to a longer contract. If he is doing a good job, we can extend the contract.
And whoever started the rumor that the new superintendent is not looking to buy a house in Middletown is flat wrong. He is working with John Sawyer.
Marcia Andrew
|
Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 11:22am
|
Marcia, an issue that is behind many of the complaints is the issue of salaries/benefits and the teachers' union. Can you elaborate on how "we" negotiate with the union, when is the next contract due, who ...if anyone...will ever fight the union to put the brakes on the runaway train of step increases, increases based on relatively useless masters degrees (do they make a poor teacher a good one? I doubt it), the tenure joke, benefits, etc. |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 11:38am
|
Love To Teach- you state (under the Governors plan) "the plan lowers what local taxpayers are expected to contribute to local schools from 23 mils to 20 mils". Does this statement imply that we taxpayers will be paying LESS to the schools in the future since the milleage is reduced?
Also, you state in your post under use of conversion levies.....will allow districts' revenues to grow- "Districts that use a conversion levy, and all districts whose tax structure already allows growth on 20 mils, will see their tax revenues grow with increased property value, helping schools to keep up with inflation". We all know that the probability of property growth here in Middletown in little to none for many years at the rate this town is progressing. That means, according to the above statement, that due to no property value increases, the schools will not see revenue growth through property value increases so will we be bombarded with levies to "help the schools keep up with inflation"? It looks like, with the state contributing more in the future (up to 59% by 2017), the Middletown schools can get the bulk of their money from the state and won't bother us with levies all the time- right? OR, will they still keep asking for more even though their monetary appetite has been quenched by the state? |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 11:43am
|
Ms. Andrew- why doesn't the school board do a better job on behalf of the taxpayer/property owner, to represent us in negotiations when the school union gets out of hand with their demands? Why does it appear to us citizens that the school board seems to "lay down and die" and not take a stand against some of these union tenure, step increase, days off, master degree upgrade etc. demands? OR, does the public have the wrong impression about what happens in these negotiations?
Thank you, in advance, for your explanation. |
Posted By: Marcia Andrew
Date Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 12:36pm
|
Bill and Vet, you both asked about negotiations with the unions.
There are two separate unions--the Middletown Teachers Association (MTA) which represents teachers, and the Middletown Classified Employees Association (MCEA) which represents support staff. Administrators are not represented by a union. There are also a few employees (like secretaries) who are not represented by the MCEA but are covered by the civil service rules for public employees.
The contract with the MTA was last negotiated in 2007 and it is a 3 year contract so it is up for negotiation again this year. The MCEA contract is also 3 years and was last negotiated in 2008. Generally the MCEA follows the increases (or freezes) agreed to with the MTA.
I can't speak directly to negotiations prior to 2007 as I wasn't on the board then. I do know that the MTA is part of state and national teachers unions from which they take their positions, and that the Middletown teachers contract is very similar to contracts with other school districts across Ohio and the nation. The uniformity of these contracts restricts the ability of any one school board from changing the status quo. Schools need to stay competitive to attract decent quality teachers.
You don't hear much about the negotiations because federal labor law prohibits us from saying much about the substance of the negotiations. There are negotiaton teams for each side. In the past, no school board member has been on the negotiating team, but that could change.
In 2007, we negotiated smaller percentage increases in base pay (compared to budget forecast, and compared to prior contract), and doubled the amount of health insurance premium the teachers must pay. We wanted to modify the step schedule, but the union wouldn't even discuss the issue. So, I do not agree that we "lay down and die."
Normally, negotiations would have begun already at this point in the year. However, if the levy fails, the district has no money. Even if it passes, it is just a renewal, so where is there any money for raises? We asked the union to extend the existing contract for one year with no increase. This would also give the new superintendent time to learn the district and whether there are any non-monetary issues that need to be negotiated. To my knowledge, we have not received a formal response yet.
Marcia Andrew
|
Posted By: Marcia Andrew
Date Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 12:44pm
|
I should also add that pensions and tenure are mostly set by state law.
State law requires school districts to contribute 14% of gross salary (on top of gross salary paid to the teacher) to the State Teachers Retirement System, and each teacher is required to contribute 10% of their gross pay into the STRS. After that, the amount of the benefits is set by STRS and paid by STRS. So this is not something under the control of the local school board. FYI, your state legislature is considering requiring school districts to contribute an additional 2% of gross pay -- where do they think that money is going to come from? Not from the state, for sure.
Tenure rules are also governed by state law. Governor Strickland made some changes that will be taking effect soon, increasing the number of years before a teacher can get tenure, and trying to establish a more professional progression along a track of increasing levels. Again, not much can be done at the state level. When a district has to cut staff, the cuts affect the least senior, and therefore least expensive, employees.
Marcia Andrew
|
Posted By: sportsnut
Date Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 12:53pm
|
Have any of the potential NO voters that are fed up with the same ole, same ole from Middletown City Schools spent any time with the new Super to get a feel for what his plans are to make this a better school district? Or is your attitude same ole, same ole because that is much easier?
I would encourage any of you to meet the man - find out what he sees for the future of this district. I think you will be pleased with how different he is from the former Super and the direction Middletown City Schools is moving. |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 3:02pm
|
http://www.blip.tv/file/3522089 -
Mr. Rassmussen on TV Middletown
http://www.blip.tv/file/3522089
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date 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 |
Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 3:45pm
| watched the TVM clip of new Super.....is it pronounced RasMYOOSsen or RasMUSSen? |
Posted By: Marcia Andrew
Date 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
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date 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.
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date 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.
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date 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.
|
Posted By: LoveToTeach
Date 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. |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date 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 |
Posted By: Smartman
Date 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
|
Posted By: Bill
Date 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?
|
Posted By: Smartman
Date 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. |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date 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 |
Posted By: Marcia Andrew
Date 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
|
Posted By: Marcia Andrew
Date 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
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date 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 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date 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 |
)Posted By: spiderjohn
Date 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.
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date 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.
|
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Marcia Andrew
Date 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.
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date 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. . " '
|
Posted By: Hermes
Date 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 !! |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 12:37pm
| Hermes- IMO, no one, from the school board to the admin., to the teachers indicate that they care whether you can afford what THEY want to happen. They appear to be in it for themselves. They will do anything to protect their system, their job, their pay and their benefits/retirement despite being presented factual evidence that they haven't performed to earntheir requests. They care not who is affected-just that they get their requests met and that their turf is protected. If this were not true, we would occasionally read or hear some type of acknowledgement that they realize that their leviescould be a hardship on certain segments of the community. Don't hear or read that message at all, do we? All we hear is the blame game where no-voters are "hurting the kids"- "denying the kids a decent education"- "hurting the health of the community by not supporting the schools"- "unappreciative of the educational community"- etc. Not allowed to have a descenting opinion. Just blindly go along with the program and give them what they want. Hell, that "giving them what they want" has contributed to where we are now. We started out believing their "trust us" propaganda and accorded them their every wish for years. You see what they got us.....(cue the indicators/proficiency test scores and continuous improvement ranking after all these years) Mercy it is painful to watch as this school district has gone right down the crapper since the 70's. However, as Docktor Stevie Price told me one time when we got into it, "well I don't see it that way" when I showed him the area test scores with Midd. on the bottom and questioned why that was. Denying facts presented, giving as many reasons out of their control as to why they failed, and flat out twisting of comments made by the opposition seem to be their favorite games to play. Admission of shortcomings, failures and deceit is not in their playbook. Never will be. |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 4:37pm
|
Spider:
I meant exactly what I said!!! No more, no less!!
I did not "imply" that the BoE was wrong about anything EXCEPT their statements that the "tax RATE could not rise"!!
The tax RATE can rise, by up to 4% per year, as "current properties" fall off the tax rolls.
The "TOTAL AMOUNT" or "FIXED SUM" of $18.3 million that the District will be entitled to receive cannot rise, but the amount that each current or future owner of "CURRENT PROPERTIES" pays CAN RISE!!!
This will be TRUE regardless of how much you, Ms. Andrew, the BoE, or anyone else hope it not to be true.
These attacks are rapidly convincing me of the proper vote on this issue. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 5:07pm
|
Ms. Andrew: Your efforts using the ratios of assessed value to amount paid per property offend me because either:
You refuse to accept the simple concept that THE DISTRICT IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT THE “FIXED SUM” (your term, my term has consistently been “total amount“) OF $18.3 MILLION FROM THE TAX-PAYING OWNERS OF THE “CURRENT PROPERTIES”, EVEN IF THE POOL OF “CURRENT PROPERTIES” SHRINKS!!! Now, it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to do this unless, in some fashion or other, taxes are RAISED on the remaining “CURRENT PROPERTIES”!!! THAT is one point on which I believe the proponents have been misleading the voters. SAME "fixed sum", fewer "current properties", DO THE MATH!!! Now, if you STILL don’t understand, you can look it up, ask an expert, phone a friend, or write Dear Abby. I don't care because I know that I have done my best to speak the truth!!! And that is the last that I will say on the matter!!! ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 5:16pm
|
Hmmm.....it appears the tactic is out of Saul Alinsky's playbook on Radicalism:
Pass the levy tactics-
7. Tactics "Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. ... Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves." p.126 1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." 2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication. 3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.) 4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity." 5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." 6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." 7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...." 8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose." 9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." 10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign." 11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative." 12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134) |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 6:18pm
|
lol
y'all are far too sensitive and take yourselves far too seriously.
Vote however you choose--just spare us the egotistical rhetoric.
Thankfully Mike P, is done.
This levy will probably pass without your support anyway.
Hermes' reasoning was by far the most real and sensible.
|
Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 7:11pm
| Hermes, can't help but jab a little here.... the well-worn "living on a fixed income" complaint doesn't mean much over the last few years. Many of us would love our income to be fixed and have no fear of pay reduction, layoffs, etc.! Besides, most "merit pools" companies give out is about 2-3% -- which isn't too far off the COI increase you would get. |
Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 7:15pm
| I meant COL, Cost of Living increase.... |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 7:20pm
|
Of course it will pass sj! Its because the rationale is so compelling...its the Middlie Pride, we're getting better right? And those that disagree, well, its the egotistical know it alls, the naysayers. Well, the naysayers have had it up to here with Middletown's promises, and I would be a little more cautious than you articulate in your wild enthusiasm for a positive outcome. New Jersey thought the same as you declare. Bill, the adage, its Middie pride, and we are making progress cannot be a more worn phrase than an individual stating the income is fixed. But, at least you comprehend the difference between fixed and variable expense, that's an improvement over some. Here's New Jersey's results folks, and Middletown is on a path to greatness! I still have alot of oil in the Gulf of Mexico for sale for those buying this positive spin on the levy.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-21/new-jersey-voters-defeat-record-majority-of-school-budgets.html - http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-21/new-jersey-voters-defeat-record-majority-of-school-budgets.html
|
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 7:21pm
|
lol bill--unfortunaely I can't give any pay increases, and have taken two pay cuts.
fixed income could mean goord or bad
no one can afford more taxes, especially for non-essential services
fortunately the school levy vote doesn't have to be unanimous
|
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 7:21pm
|
Thank you spider, and I really hate to get upset over the issues because I tend to lose focus, but the buck has to stop some where. I realize this issue is important to a lot of people especially the kids when they see and hear what teachers & administrators,who they are taught to respect and never doubt, spew their threats & intimidation tactics to the public these kids must think the general public hates them or something. We live in a spoiled environment. Kids are spoiled, adults are spoiled and it's pathetic.
My entire argument about levies is not about test scores or pay raises, it's the fact that when the city or BOE ask for money they will go to any and all lengths to get it and not give a damn about who they walk on to do it. They get tunnel vision, all they see is how much money they can get and for how long.
I'll direct this to Ms Andrew, do you care where this money comes from ? Do you give a damn whether or not someone has to do without to pay for this levy ? Do you care that a child may have to go to your school wearing clothes bought at Salvation Army because his/her parents have to dish out so much money ? Do you care that a child may go to bed hungry because his/her parents can't afford a meal because the levy took away grocery money ? Do you think any employer will give a Middeltown resident a pay raise to cover what is being paid in levies ? Do you care that this year alone there are a total of 3 levies being presented to the public ?
In closing, this is not the 1960's, AK Steel is no longer a supporter & benefactor of this town. Middletown has fallen, the downtown area is dead. The high paying jobs are not present. The hospital even left town. (I don't care what you call the east side it's not Middeltown) It's over. The funds are not here. In the flyer I received today it mentions this money will go towards teachers, support staff, sports, honors programs, foreign language, music and art, busses, books, supplies and other programs. At least three of these could be eliminated. Cuts are needed, not increases. ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 7:34pm
Jab away Bill, I'm a tough old coot.
Just for clarification when I refered to fixed income that is what I get only from my own investment as retirement. I don't get SS or SSI so for me there is no raise or cost of living increase. When I say fixed it's exactly that,fixed at a certain level and as I age that level keeps going down. The economy hasn't helped either. My wife still works though, a full time job thank goodness. (That leaves me all this free time to get on here and b****.) ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 7:56pm
|
ahh, that sounds nice -- to have a couple years in retirement while the wife still works. Sleep in, golf any time...I can only hope |
Posted By: Smartman
Date Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 8:49pm
| Hey!!! I'm on a fixed income!!! My employer only gives so many dollars to live on! So what are you bitching about Hermes? |