It is high time that we air the truth about Ms. Robarts' assertions.   The problem with drafting a specific response to Ruth's position paper is that she has written such generalities about our abdicating our responsibilities as a Board, to respond is tantamount to just saying, "It ain't so.")  Which it ain't.  The attacks on the Board and the Administration are polarizing, counter productive, and yield only bad vibes and distrust-- whose fruits will live long after the current political campaign.  The attacks presume nefarious, dishonest motives and question the values and integrity of others who have devoted years to serving the children and families of this school district.  The Board does not surrender its final decisions to the administrators-- the administrators are by law required to submit their RECOMMENDATIONS, and then the Board goes into action analyzing the figures, the judgements, and makes the real decisions in public debate, forums, and ultimately votes.  Below is the document that we received at the Board meeting on Monday nite regarding some details regarding the PROPOSED cuts.
It is here below. I propose that we let the facts-- rather than political posturing-- speak for themselves.

• The budget cuts presented by the administration reflect the realities of 10 years of revenue limits.  Over the past four years, including the recommended cuts for 2004-05, $11.7 million, or 46%, of the cuts have come from the administration and business functions.
• Saving $7 million, or 5%, on non-instruction implies that $140 million of the budget is non-instructional or 50% of the total operational budget.  In fact, 77% of the operational budget is included in Elementary and Secondary Education, Special Education, ESL, and Student Services.  Additionally, Teaching and Learning makes up 2% of the operational budget and provides direct support to instructional staff.
• Business Services and Human Resources represent 20% of the operational budget.  This includes all custodial staff, maintenance costs, custodial supplies, vehicles, utilities, etc.
• The remaining 1% of the budget represents General Administration (which includes Legal, Security, and Public Information).
• The impact of an across-the-board cut in non-instructional areas is in actuality a 10% cut in the areas not affected by automatic inflationary increases.  Items such as utilities, supplies, transportation, district insurances, etc., increases are not able to be reduced and, in most cases, are impacted by market-based increases.
• 1.5 administrative positions are recommended to be cut as part of the 2004-05 reductions.  These include 1.0 coordinator of Parent Community Relations and .5 P.E. coordinator.  The budget cuts implemented for 2003-04 included two senior level administrators.
• The 1.0 athletic administrator included in the reorganization of the athletic department districtwide is a replacement for an already existing half-time administrator and three of the four building level athletic directors.
• In talking about the number of administrators, it is important to note that of the 155 administrators in the district 70 are school based and 32 are professional staff doing accounting, legal work, etc.  This leaves 43 people for directing and managing $308 million, programming for 25,000 students, maintaining over 50 buildings and sites, and evaluating employees.  If we continue to cut central administration further, who will manage the business and human resource functions such as accounting, payroll, hiring, maintenance, custodial services, etc.?
• State revenue limits add only $6million to the budget each year, not $9 million.

March 17, 2004