LJWorld.com / Chat with Rich Minder

March 26, 2008

This chat has already taken place. Read the transcript below.

School board member Rich Minder will chat with readers at 11 a.m. Wednesday about the April 1 local-option budget election. The Lawrence school board is asking voters to grant it the authority to raise an extra $679,000 to help fund salary raises and other programs. Board members have said the property tax increase would amount to an extra $14 a year for the owner of a home valued at $200,000.

Moderator: Good morning, and welcome to today's chat on Tuesday's election about the Lawrence school district's local-option budget. I'm Journal-World reporter George Diepenbrock, and I'll be the moderator. I want to welcome board member Rich Minder for making it to the News Center to chat with readers about the election.

Rich Minder: Good morning. It is good to be here. Thank you for the opportunity.

Moderator: Rich, can you please give a summary of what voters will decide in the election and why the school board is asking for the authority?

Rich Minder: Yes. On Tuesday, April 1st, the voters will decide if they would like to give the Board of Education the authority to levy a Local Option Budget of 31% (up from 30%) of our General Fund Budget. This LOB is a significant part of how we as a community pay for our children's education.

SofaKing: During the early stages of a recession, when our economy is in the tank, when banks are shaky, when gas prices are sky-high, when the housing market is in the toilet, when global investment firms are collapsing, is it appropriate to ask anyone to pay more for anything?

Rich Minder: SofaKing: Thank you for the question. At times like this individuals in our community and our community as a whole needs to examine what we value most. Our community will certainly survive the current economic downturn. Throughout the months to come individuals will make many decisions to spend money in this economy. There are precious few investments that we can choose to make together as a community. One of these investments is in our future economic vitality and resilience. AT THIS TIME, I belief that it is appropriate to make needed investment in this future. Public Education in Lawrence is how we make that investment. If you take a look at the monthly cost of this collective effort (approximately $1.15 per month for a home valued at $200,000), I consider this one of the best investments we can make together. Especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

nrb: What percentage of the $679,000 will be used to fund teacher salaries? What is the projected percentage increase for teacher salaries? What guarantee is there, that the argument "we would like to increase salaries but don't have the money" will not be heard again during negotiations EVEN if the increase is approved?

Rich Minder: nrb: Thank you for these important questions. Approximately 83% of the general fund budget goes to pay for salaries and benefits. This should give you a pretty good idea of a percentage that any source of funds we have to work with is allocated. We are currently in negotiations with the Lawrence Education Association and it would be inappropriate to project in this online forum a percentage increase in teacher salaries. There are no guarantees that I can give as to what will or will not be said during negotiations sessions. I am not on the committee representing the Board in these negotiations this year. Even if I was on that committee, it would be inappropriate and unfair to both the LEA and the public to present a guarantee outside of the negotiations process.

commuter: By putting the LOB on the ballot, is the school board waiting to start negotiations with the LEA? If so, why? Why can't the school district live within it means? Do administrators who make 75,000 really need a raise every year?

Rich Minder: commuter: Thank you for the questions. the Board of Education has not placed the request for authority to raise the LOB so that we can begin negotiations with the LEA. Negotiations sessions have already begun and are ongoing. In the five years that I have had the privledge of serving our community on the Board, we have not settled negotiations until after the legislature has ended its session. Now to the question of living within "it means". Our job is to provide the highest quality education and to do our part to ensure that EVERY child in our community has an equal opportunity to become a productive contributor to our economy. This takes money and it is within our means. One of those means is managerial expertise and leadership. These two "factors of production" for delivering educational services are increasingly hard to come by. We are very lucky to have attracted and retained the quality of administrators we have. If you examine the salary levels of our administrators, we have consistently lagged behind similar communities. In spite of this these administrators have continued to lead our district to national recognitions. Financial reward is how we as a society have come to value our workforce. It should come as no surprise that our strategy to attract and retain high quality staff would extend to our principles and other leaders.

Moderator: Rich, According to the third year of the Legislature's school finance plan, the Lawrence district is estimated to get about $1 million more in unrestricted funding that could be used for general fund expenses. With school finance in mind, the next question is about how the board depends on local property taxes for the LOB as well.

macon47: Usd497 gets the largest chunk of our tax dollars Yet comes back every year wanting more money How much is enough for your folks? We cannot sit around looking for ways to spend money We have to look at ways to cut expenses at home We have to live within our means Why don't you?

Rich Minder: macon47: I appreciate your question and the concerns behind it. My household struggles with our budget as well. One of the great American values that we all share when we come into the public square to discuss public finance generally and public education investment specifically is the value of good stewardship and economic efficiency. Presenting the school district's budget as a binary choice between cutting expenses versus "looking for things to spend money on" is only one way to frame the issues surrounding these values. In reality, we all make complex decisions in our private business dealings and in our households. I consistently have held that a more complete frame of reference for how we spend our public funds needs to consider the concept of investment. This way of understanding our public education funding is important in several respects. To give one example, the global economy is not going to suddenly stop changing and evolving and requring local communities to adapt and select new ways of competing. Our education system is tied to this dynamic and will require that we continue to remain competitive in how we prepare our children for that world. This will require that we invest efficiently. The Board of Education continues to look for efficiencies in the midst of these changes. It is doubtful that the demand for a diminishing supply of qualified educators will go away any time soon. However, this investment in quality staff is one of the most efficient uses of public funds that we can make.

Moderator: We have time for one more question. Thanks to our readers for submitting them today.

LogicMan: A proponent of this tax increase has stated that it is important to make our teachers' salaries competitive with Johnson County. However, we have one-fifth the population and only 64.5% of the per capita income here. As such, it is unrealistic for us to pay as well. But one great resource we have, and they don't, is the KU School of Education. Are interns from it being fully utilized, e.g., one-class co-ops for all their seniors each year? They would provide enthusiastic cheap or even free help in large quantities, and help the interns build up their resumes. This would also allow decreasing salaried-teaching positions, and thus provide handsome raises for the remaining. Lots of classes are taught at KU by advanced students, and the results are quite good.

Rich Minder: LogicMan: I appreciate your taking a sober look at our position relative to Johnson County. I might point out that our student out-performe their peers in Johnson County. This has to do largely with quality leadership in our schools as well as the quality of the educators we have attracted and retain. These educators and leaders do, in fact, initiate and sustain a number of relationships with KU School of Education with interns, student teachers and so on. I would be most interested in a hearing a plan that continues to maximize this resource for the primary goal of learning for all whatever it takes.

Moderator: Thank you again, Rich, for taking time from your schedule to join us today. Do you have any other parting words?

Rich Minder: I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the questions of our fellow citizens and have learned from the experience. Thank you.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

26 March 2008
at 1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

toefungus (Anonymous) says…

School Board:
Please give us money. We never ask for less money, only more. We must represent the poor feeds off the taxpayers. Think of the kiddies, and our second homes.

They sound like the United Way more than a school district.
Who represents the taxpayers?
26 March 2008
at 1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Informed (Anonymous) says…

Vote “NO”.

Vote early.

Vote often.

And tell your friends to vote “NO”.
26 March 2008
at 1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

toefungus (Anonymous) says…

School Board:
Please give us money. We never ask for less money, only more. We must represent the poor feeds off the taxpayers. Think of the kiddies, and our second homes.

They sound like the United Way more than a school district.
Who represents the taxpayers?

BTW, it is not the educators and leaders that result in kids that out perform Johnson County. It is the households. Give credit where it is due. If spending more money for teachers and leadership are the reason for this increase, then the results should resemble Johnson County.
26 March 2008
at 3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Why not impact fees or excise taxes? Local real estate developers have had a great time laughing all of the way to the bank on the backs of taxpayers. This is the root of the problem.
USD 497 is not the problem.

I am curious as to how many feel about the city and county spending tax dollars that continue to raise taxes instead of reducing our personal property taxes to average cost of living increase of 4%? Keeping user fees in check? Due irresponsible decisions of the past 25 years it may be time to put all tax dollar projects to a public vote once a year. It is my conclusion that taxpayers are as qualified as most any commissioner when making fiscally responsible decisions. This process would remove a certain amount of corruption.

Our city's current budget crunch could easily be tied directly to infrastructure expenses needed to serve new housing developments. The community is way over extended in this regard.

If residential growth paid for itself and was financially positive, we would not be in a budget crunch. But with increased numbers of houses you have increased demand on services, and historically the funding of revenues generated by single-family housing does not pay for the services, they require from a municipality.

“We want. to make sure we tie the fees as closely as possible to when the demand is being generated. Water and sewer fees would be collected when the subdivision is constructed. Services more related to occupancy and homes being constructed would be collected later.
Schools,parks etc etc. But space must be set aside for both.

While developers pay for onsite water, sewer and road infrastructure, Scruggs said it is costly to pay for offsite upgrades needed, such as enlarging lift stations and raising water towers.

New water and sewer lines come from the general fund revenue paid by each taxpayer in the city. Someone on the old east sides of town are paying for subsidizing the growth in demand caused by the development in the south,west and northwest part of town. What's up with that??

The south west and northwest parts of town is where the greatest residential growth is being seen. There has been so much growth in recent years that the city thinks it needs a new sewage treatment plant, needs to extend 31st street,thinks it needs more light industrial property which is caused by artificial economic growth aka bedroom community.

Impact fees and excise taxes are legal. Either of these would probably have provided the community with extra revenue instead of being in the hole.

In order for the city to have orderly growth, developers need to be responsible for a certain amount of the infrastructure. Most builders understand impact fees or excise taxes are for a purpose that improves their big profit making developments.
26 March 2008
at 3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Considering all of the very large tax increasing projects on the taxpayers table I can understand why taxpayers are apprehensive. Cost of living cannot necessarily be tied to USD 497. USD 497 expenses are a direct result of fiscally irresponsible growth.
26 March 2008
at 4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kookamooka (Anonymous) says…

Vote Yes
26 March 2008
at 4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…

How much will the taxes go up on the Delaware Commons emtyp units? Minder is a puppet for the district and the tough questions submitted were not presented so they could not be answered. In other words, the J/W supports the bond issue and we are to sit downand shut up. I predict this bond issue will pass and the city will be next at the sagging teat. Will breast pumps be issued next?

Vote no and pray!
26 March 2008
at 5:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

Good point toefungus, Lawrence is an educated community it stands to reason children from educated parents will do better academically. But the school board wants to take credit for teaching in an educated community. Funny!!
26 March 2008
at 5:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Eride (Anonymous) says…

Education is important BUT continually raising taxes because the school system is inefficient and mismanaging resources needs to stop.
26 March 2008
at 6:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ECM (Anonymous) says…

“Approximately 83% of the general fund budget goes to pay for salaries and benefits.”

Funny, he doesn't specify that the 83% is for class room teachers salaries. Wonder if those funds would also benefit the Weisman and others not in the classroom?
26 March 2008
at 7:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

commuter (Anonymous) says…

I love how Minder talks about leaderships and development. Based on my personla experience and personal knowledge of the admin. Most of the couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag while standing one inch away from the opening. Tom Btacciano is a prime example.
26 March 2008
at 8:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

texburgh (Anonymous) says…

Saying that 83% of the budget goes to salaries does not answer the question. The question is: Will the money be used for teacher salaries to make Lawrence more competitive with Johnson County? The answer to the question should be simple. And dancing around it because you are negotiating is just that - dancing.

Minder could have said, “The board intends to commit 100% of the funds generated through this tax increase to teacher compensation.” He did not. He implied that 83% will be used for all employee salaries.

I don't believe the teachers union would be upset if the board announced publicly their intention to devote 100% to teacher compensation and let the negotiators decided how much goes to salaries and how much to benefits.

I believe Minder's comments show that the board intends to go into negotiations and work for the lowest salary increase they can get the teachers to accept.

And I think the people of Lawrence would support a proposal that gives 100% to teachers and principals - the people that work face to face with our children every day. These are tough times. Central office administrators can tighten their belts so that Lawrence will be able to attract and keep the best teachers.

So I ask again, What will you do with the money? And please be specific.