Revenue secretary says tax cuts are working

"Let them eat cake!"

May 5, 2013 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Revenue secretary says tax cuts are working

@your worst nightmare - essentially you are correct. Many whose tax burden was reduced/eliminated really didn't 'feel' that until they filed their taxes. Others may have been conservative - questioning if it was too good to be true. The 'job creation and business expansion frenzy' this is suppossed to create would just be getting started (if at all). This is a dangerous game - touting questionable at best 'math' to push an agenda forward. If that's really what it's from they should feel perfectly safe allowing the sales tax to expire (as was the law).

May 5, 2013 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Revenue secretary says tax cuts are working

While I'm pretty fiscally conservative I don't buy Brownback's plan. I'm a business owner and could've elected to change my corporation type to take advantage of these cuts I haven't. Sure, I'd like to have more money and realistically I'd probably be one of those that might use that for expansion. Fact is, I'm already expanding. Fact is that I believe in working for a living and I'm a very hands on business owner. The reality is that if they wanted growth and expansion and more importantly to attract new business to Kansas the tax cuts should be DIRECTLY tied to that activity. The type of corporation that this tax cut is for is mostly benefiting are doctors and lawyers, which don't typically expand and were probably already here.

The only way to see if this is working is to look at how many new businesses there are and how much lower unemployment is. I really wouldn't have a problem with sales tax (although I really believe we shouldn't be taxed in so many directions) if medicine and groceries were exempt - we all have to eat and be healthy. It's way too easy for the current administration to say 'See? It's working!" - other states didn't do it and whatever 'it' is seems to be working there too - so that's not likely to be 'it'.

May 5, 2013 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Truancy policies can catch parents by surprise

It certainly is one sided - and the district should be speaking up. They don't need to discuss or dispute anything about this specific case to explain their policies and procedures publicly and I doubt the paper would be unwilling to do so. The superintendent needs to speak up - either to explain the policies clearly or to state that a standardized policy is being produced. I'm concerned that the silence indicates they know they have a policy problem, and announcing they're going to change it could be used against them in the event of a lawsuit. It's a catch 22 for the district - if they say they're going to change policy it can be construed as an admission of guilt and used against them, or it could resolve the situation and prevent legal action (which would really be the best for everyone in my opinion). I'm not much of a gambler, but when I mess up I try not to make excuses and just be honest and lay out a plan to fix it as best as I can. It seems to work pretty well for me, so I take that bet every time.

May 2, 2013 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Truancy policies can catch parents by surprise

Even when you speak to staff they don't tell you (nor make the decision) that the absence is excused or unexcused - that's left to the principal to determine. Once again - my problem isn't that the absences should have been excused - some may and some may not - perhaps even all of them should have been unexcused.. My problem is that they apparently chose not to communicate with the parent when the unexcused absences were approaching a serious level. If I though I smelled a gas leak coming from your house I'd knock on your door and tell you to get out before it blows up instead of assuming you know you've got a gas leak and it serves you right when it blows up. It's common human decency to try to help prevent people from getting into a train wreck. Those who live by the 'give them enough rope to hang themselves' mentality shouldn't be influencing our children in my opinion. If the parent was properly notified then this is a non-issue. So far district officials are silent - which only reinforces the illustration that they have some serious communication issues. This district is too small to not have uniform policies - it is a huge legal liability when each school makes it's own rules and we as taxpayers will be paying the tab when the district has to try to defend an action that should have been mediated first. If they notified the parent and the parent ignored their communication (certified mail is the preferred method when it's a serious matter) then this parent got what they deserved. Otherwise, failing to communicate with a parent about a serious issue (attendance IS a serious issue) is a major failure.

May 2, 2013 at 9:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Truancy policies can catch parents by surprise

Been to Deerfield plenty. Calling the schools frequently requires leaving a voicemail, which is really no different than an email. Furthermore if she did email, the school should have emailed back with "Your child's absence has been recorded as unexcused. To date she has 'x' number of unexcused absences and 'x' number of absences may result in notifying SRS to evaluate the situation." Now wasn't that easy?

May 2, 2013 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Truancy policies can catch parents by surprise

Please enlighten us to your apparent in-depth and intimate knowledge of this particular situation. If this parent's allegations are untrue please provide your job title with the district or SRS (since one would presume you'd have to work for one or the other to have such information or possibly be a neighbor of the mom in the article) and what other proof of 'neglect' you have to offer. Otherwise I can only conclude you're more interested in stirring things up than anything else - much less that you have any real interest in helping children. Being late once a month to Kindergarten on average in my opinion is a problem, but the real problem is the lack of communication and inconsistency of policy in the district. If any of the policy information in the article or the allegations of the mother in the article and threads contradict district policy they need to stand up and say so publicly - not allege it anonymously in threads if you are in fact a district employee. I'd rather not have my kids run over by a parent that is temporarily visually impaired or otherwise just because one lone administrator deems their medical condition 'not that serious' or as fake and just making excuses for being late. Additionally without a clear policy we as parents are all at risk every time one of our kids is sick or has an appointment - even when the handbook states those as excused, it's open to 'interpretation' - ie:'corruption'. It leaves it open to the principal ultimately decide that someone's 'faking' or 'lazy' and deem it 'unexcused' quietly until they can create a real problem for someone they perhaps don't like personally. Checks and balances are a good idea. It helps to prevent corruption and in this case if it were handled with additional district administrative staff involvement, acknowledgement from the district administration of communication to the parent BEFORE sending it to SRS (giving the parent the opportunity to contest or comply) Joni wouldn't look like the bad gal here. The city gives notices, the bank gives notices - the school district should to. If they did they need to speak up about it. If they didn't those who should have should be ashamed of themselves for either being incompetent, malicious or cowardly for hiding behind the SRS because they didn't want the confrontation that could come from notification.

May 2, 2013 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Truancy policies can catch parents by surprise

If you read the article and responses in this thread from the parent in the article you would know that she says she did just as you suggest.

May 2, 2013 at 8:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Truancy policies can catch parents by surprise

I'd suggest all parents with kids in USD497 call district headquarters at 785-832-5000 and ask them to pull up the attendance records for this year to make sure your children don't have any unexcused absences. One of my kids was very sick a few weeks ago and the times I had to call in I was only able to leave a voicemail. I never heard from anyone at the school and presume the absences are excused, but apparently there's no policy in the district to notify parents about unexcused absences.
As for calling SRS - especially for attendance - that should never be left to the individual schools. USD497 administration should always be involved with anything resembling that level of seriousness - it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
It's like having the 16 year old shift supervisor at McDonald's just firing staff at will - they shouldn't have that kind of authority at that level. They could certainly recommend it, but shouldn't be able to execute it.

May 2, 2013 at 6:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Truancy policies can catch parents by surprise

So many seem to be missing the point - the mother did what she thought she was supposed to do. She called the school and the school never bothered to inform the parent that it was unexcused. Furthermore the school never informed her (which at the very least should result in a form letter) that if the child exceeded a specific number of absences it would be reported to SRS. As an employer, when I have staff that shows up late to work it is my responsibility to write them up for being late and have them sign off that they understand the potential consequences if it continues. If I fail to meet those responsibilities and fire the employee the state will unquestionably pay their unemployment claim even if they were chronically late or absent (which means higher unemployment rates that I have to pay).
I know what migraines can be like - and those of you that say you have them and it's no excuse, you've clearly self diagnosed, been mis-diagnosed or at the very least must have the absolutle mildest migraines there are. Every migraine med I have tried has either resulted in delaying the migraine for a couple of hours only to have it rebound worse or result in side effects for me that the bottle says to discontinue use immediately if you have them. Simple communication was all that was required. Instead the schools administration is either too lazy to attempt to communicate, specifically chose to allow the absences to quietly accumulate to create the situation or just plain screwed up by not communicating. The policy itself may not be that unsound, but the execution does absolutely no justice to the child or parent - nor the district. If the school had sent out letters to the parent informing them of the unexcused absences and potential consequences there wouldn't be a story here.

May 1, 2013 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )