[ back ]
Maverick school board member raps renewal levy
(by Sue Hoffman - October 21, 2009)
Maverick school board member raps renewal levy
By SUE HOFFMAN
West Geauga School Board member Michael Kilroy said last week his actions regarding the renewal levy on the Nov. 3 ballot represent "the only way to get the information out."
Mr. Kilroy had placed two advertisements in a local publication about the renewal levy. He would not comment on the ads directly or say how many more he planned.
Four of the five members of the school board approved the renewal of the five-year emergency operating levy, which generates $2.35 million annually and represent no increase in taxes.
Mr. Kilroy abstained, saying that cuts should be made before putting a levy on the ballot. He said the levy should be on the ballot in February, after the district trims costs, even though it would cost the district up to $35,000 to have the ballot issue at that time.
School officials said the November ballot issue is costing only $100, since the district is already paying $12,000 to the board of elections to have the school board race.
Mr. Kilroy said administrative contracts were reviewed last spring "right smack in the middle of the recession-depression, and the board took no action. I'm not against having a levy," he said. "I want it well thought out."
Mr. Kilroy said administrative costs could be cut by reductions in force.
School Superintendent Anthony Podojil said the district has trimmed costs, and he sees no reason to spend the extra money for a ballot issue in February. "We would be wasting up to $35,000 of taxpayers' money to put it on in February," he said.
"Among the cost reductions, administrators' salaries were frozen for this year's contract," Dr. Podojil said. He said the district has contracted with Energy Ed, of Texas, to reduce overall energy consumption and is working with Metzenbaum Center to save significant costs on a bus garage.
The last teachers' contract had zero raises the first year and 0.5 percent raises the second and third year, he said. "We are probably the lowest in the region. That has had the biggest impact on the budget," Dr. Podojil said.
"Our administrative costs are in the average range for an above-average performing district." He said the district has received the highest "excellent with distinction" ranking on the state report card both years that the designation has been in place.
Mr. Kilroy said the district's forecast shows a substantial shortage. "Per the Friday, Oct. 9, finance meeting, the district will be short $8.5 million in just a few years. In spite of that, the district decided not to trim administrative fat, not to reduce contract lengths and not to reduce administrative perks. This could save us at least $100,000 per year," he said.
District Treasurer Michele Tullai said, if Mr. Kilroy is referring to discussion of the five-year forecast, her original forecast showed a deficit of $6.3 million after five years. Taking into consideration projected reductions in utility costs, she said, she reduced the projected deficit at the end of five years to $5.7 million. That projection assumes that all of the new legislative mandates would be unfunded and remain unchanged, she said.
"Fiscal responsibility should have taken place in the spring. Then the levy in November would be fine," Mr. Kilroy said. "Since the district opted not to be as fiscally responsible -- zero cuts and savings in the spring --with the district's finances in the worst recession since the Great Depression, there is no choice but to fail the levy in November, forcing the district to put it on in February with cuts at the administrative level only." He said his recommended cuts would not include teachers' salaries.
Mr. Kilroy said he's not campaigning against the levy.
School board President William Beers disagreed. "I don't understand how Mr. Kilroy can claim to not be campaigning against a levy when he very clearly states in the ad that was just published to vote no in November ... even if he says, 'Do it right in February.'
"He has been repeatedly told that the levy amount will be the same. Any change possible in the budget will be minimal due to set personnel contracts and state funding," Mr. Beers said. "It will not affect the levy amount," he said.
"We will continue to make cuts and look for savings," Mr. Beers said. "This is nothing new."
Mr. Beers said, in order to have a ballot issue in February, the board would have to take action in November.
[ back ]
