"What I'd like to know is the truth about our finances. Total Transparency.
For instance, I'd like to know about the Schwartz and Shaw bills beyond what is written in the Herald. How much is not being reported? How much do we still owe them?
Rather than cutting salaries, let's look at how many contracted employees we pay, their costs, and for what reasons.
Rather than cutting salaries, let's look at the contract to the energy company. What are the terms to which we signed? How much are we paying them per month?
Rather than cutting salaries, look at hiring other positions in the same fashion and for the same reasons as we did the two EC directors.
Rather than cutting salaries, could the superintendent's contract be modified in any way?
Rather than cutting salaries, let's look at who is getting their cell phones paid for and for what reasons.
Rather than cutting salaries, which programs have been losing money and should be eliminated?
Rather than cutting salaries, let's beg some of the top businessmen in our state to come together to look over our financials and offer suggestions. These men and women know what they are doing. They are successful making money. Their businesses help bring people into our area. Let's learn from them rather than exclude them."
Above is a recently submitted comment that I thought ought to be shared. Please remember that I am not a board member yet and that we don't have an opportunity to act on these suggestions until we meet in December. In the meantime, we (including you) all have the ability to make our opinions known by contacting Dr. Stellar.
Schwartz and Shaw: The bill submitted is woefully short on detail. I am pursuing this as a private citizen. The only thing that is not being reported is any work done from Nov. 1 to the present. We can't compel them to submit those invoices until they are ready to (within limits). I believe we can compel them to itemize the bill they just submitted. I have learned that previous bills have been void of timekeeping detail as well, and I am honestly shocked that BCPS has paid those bills in the past without demanding itemization so that the charges can be checked against what was authorized by the board.
It is a good idea to look at all contracts and look for creative ways to share jobs where possible. It would be a gesture of good will for Dr. Stellar to offer to defer some of his income, but I don't think it is fair for the county to expect this from him. As an attorney, I believe in the freedom to contract, and he has done nothing wrong in his acceptance of this position and in signing the contract. I know many disagree.
The last budget called for a drastic reduction in blackberries. Not sure about cell phones. I think we need to tread softly here, because there are legitimate needs for cell phones/blackberries for many site administrators and such, and as we know, sometimes the price of terminating a contract early is more than continuing the contract until its end. It certainly is worth communicating with the service provider and seeing what kinds of contract amendments they will accommodate, and seeing if there are less expensive alternatives for communication.
Which programs have been losing money? Not sure what public school program doesn't lose money (except for food programs). I am not trying to be cheeky here, but please provide more detail about what programs you are talking about.
Humanities: I am under the impression that Humanities is safe for now.
A "Common Vision"? :
Discussion about technology should be held after there is consensus by stakeholders as to what the "Vision Statement" and "Goals" of the school system are. If super-high test scores are a goal shared by the stakeholders, and if technology/software is an agreed upon means to that goal, then technology issues should be tackled by the administration and principals as a team. If technology for the sake of technology is the goal (and I don't think that goal is an illegitimate goal – it is the way the world is functioning), then again, the administration and the principals must work together as a team to figure out how to accomplish that goal. Once the "Goals" and "Vision" are identified and enunciated, it is my opinion that it is the superintendent's responsibility to lead the discussion with the principals, develop as much consensus as possible, and then make the ultimate decision as to what to recommend to the board.
On the other hand, I understand that there is an attempt to provide uniform technology in all of the schools. For instance, the Alternative Schools apparently have the least optimum technology, software, textbooks and resources of all of the schools, and those students should have equal access to those things. I understand that management of schools is site-based and that principals typically make these decisions on the basis of what their schools need. In my opinion, this is not exactly a "Vision" and "Goals" issue as much as it is an equal access issue.
It seems to me (notwithstanding that administrators have a right to be territorial about their budgets and their decisions) that the bottom line is that students in all schools should have access to the same level of technology.
If the superintendent has convinced the principals that there are certain basic technology needs that all students in Burke County should have access to, then they should work together to accomplish providing that technology to every school. My sense is that both the superintendent and the principals have different ideas about this. I do not know this as a fact. It is an opinion. I hope that before the Central Office acts on any technology acquisitions, they do a thorough job in communicating their reasoning to the site administrators and get "buy in" from the principals. If they do not get "buy in" on the manner of paying for the technology, or if they do not reach consensus on what technology is actually needed, all parties need to table the discussion until the board meets and can discuss the concerns publicly.
Again, among the basic issue of equal access to technology for all schools, there are more complex issues like: what technology is "basic technology," what technology best fits all of the schools, what is the goal of the technology, what is the goal of the system, do all (most) of the stakeholders share that goal, what schools have already paid for technology and have to readjust their game plan? And of course, the most basic question: where is this money coming from? Is it earmarked especially for technology, or are we spending money that should be spent on infrastructure? (That would be part of the discussion about goals and priorities) Remember, in a funky fund/budget system, money is not always fungible and must adhere to the fund rules.
That is enough for now, I hope.
