Wake County school board vice chairwoman Debra Goldman is publicly sharing her displeasure at staff for not getting the information she's asked about on the budget.
In a post on her blog today, Goldman said she hasn't gotten the answers she's asked for since January about the budget. Much of her post focuses on the district's 3,600 cell phones and Blackberries but she also complains about "many instances" of staff asking the board to approve things at the last minute.
"Where are the details to the spending that I have requested ad nauseam since early this year?" Goldman writes.
Goldman questions why new contracts for the phones were signed when she had asked for the information before that would occur.
"Why are we making cuts that directly impact our students in the classroom, and through Project Enlightenment, while at the same time, committing to spend over a quarter of a million dollars for cell phones for bus drivers?" Goldman asks.
Goldman questions why radios can't be given to drivers instead. She also points out that bus drivers account for a minority of the phones. She asks who has the rest of them.
Goldman also questions why Wake is paying $250,000 this year for Blue Diamond testing when "we have a huge Evaluation and Research Department?"
She also asks why Wake is paying a staff member to act as lobbyist and "why aren't we budgeting for the Budget???"
Goldman also accuses staff of trying to get the board to vote on things without much notice.
"We have had many instances of late, where information has been brought to the Board of Education in a last minute 'you MUST approve this tonight' methodology," Goldman writes. "I do not agree with this tactic. I will not rubber stamp items that directly impact our children, our teachers and our community. I am asking a lot of questions. Tomorrow's meeting could be a long one..."
The reason for Goldman's blog post is that staff will ask the board to approve an interim budget resolution Tuesday. The resolution will allow Wake to operate until the budget can be finalized after the state and county approve their budgets.
Comments
Oh, this is rich...
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 07:25 — MarvinSchwartz"Goldman also accuses staff of trying to get the board to vote on things without much notice."
I nearly spit out my coffee at that one. An interesting comment from a member of the ruling junta who made their mark at the beginning of their terms by adding items to the agenda without public comment or discussion.
Ms. Goldman is being slightly disingenuous with her remark that states "We have had many instances of late, where information has been brought to the Board of Education in a last minute 'you MUST approve this tonight' methodology." The board agenda is set a week to 10 days in advance, so anything staff would have placed on the agenda has at least a week and a half's lead time. (The board, on the other hand, can add items to the agenda by a simple majority vote, a tactic they used frequently after assuming power) Her comments would lead one to think that the staff is just tacking things on as they go along.
Again, a rich comment from a member of a body not known for being, shall we say, deliberative.
Give her a break. She was
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 21:05 — zandeGive her a break. She was traumatized after being reassigned to a new school in 1st grade.
......and probably suffers
Wed, 06/16/2010 - 07:16 — HJ2ss2......and probably suffers from PTRD
Cell Phone
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 20:33 — HereWeGoWhy is she so worried about cell phones when she is going to spend an extra $65,000 and $50,000 on the Farr report?
So...
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 20:42 — Bob_Sconce3,600 cell phones x $30/month x 12 months/year = $1,296,000/year.
You tell me -- $1.3M per year would go a long way toward restoring Project Enlightenment, no?
No, you tell me...
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 07:33 — MarvinSchwartz$50K for the Farr report, $100K for a superintendent search, $150K to make Del Burns go away, $750K for extra bus drivers so Tier 3 schools wouldn't have to get out 15 minutes later and disrupt dance classes, $15M to move a high school to Rolesville... any of this would go a long way towards saving a lot of programs.
Your math is wrong...
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 08:39 — Bob_SconceDel Burns would have been paid the $150K either way. They had to do a superintendent search anyway & the cost is under $100K. And, the $15M cost has been thoroughly debunked. In any case, the $15M would be one-time capital expense, not continuing operating expense.
But, feel free to inflate the numbers however you want.
As usual, the larger point is lost...
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 13:33 — MarvinSchwartzYes, Del Burns was due the $150K either way. But he could have received while actually working for the district, rather than just being paid to go away, which is what happened.
Yes, a superintendent search has to be done anyway, but choosing the highest bidder and one with a demonstrated record of finding candidates that support a certain way of doing business raises flags.
And while I disagree the $15M figure has been "thoroughly debunked" (no one knows what the real cost will be, so we are simply debating estimates), can we at least agree that at least $7M has been spent already on a site that will now never be used and the costs never recovered?
The larger point is that the ruling junta is perfectly willing to freely spend on certain things they deem important but have little to do with cost effectiveness.
Uh...
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 13:47 — Bob_SconceYes, a superintendent search has to be done anyway, but choosing the highest bidder and one with a demonstrated record of finding candidates that support a certain way of doing business raises flags.
Do you have evidence for this other than the single article that Keung linked to in his prior post? ("It must be true because I read it on the Internet"?) In any case, IIRC, they're not the highest bidder; they just weren't the lowest.
can we at least agree that at least $7M has been spent already on a site that will now never be used and the costs never recovered?
I agree that there are some costs that won't be recovered. I have no idea how much those are, but would be interested to hear where the $7M figure came from.
Interesting tack...
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 14:29 — MarvinSchwartzDo you have evidence for this other than the single article that Keung linked to in his prior post? ("It must be true because I read it on the Internet"?)
You have been studying at the feet of the democrat spin machine - when you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger. Do you have proof that anything that was in the article Keung posted was factually incorrect?
Besides, the board has made it clear they are philosophically opposed to the NCSBA and that certainly had to figure into the decision not to retain them despite being the lowest bidder by far.
In any case, IIRC, they're not the highest bidder; they just weren't the lowest.
A ball park figure but a
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 21:09 — zandeA ball park figure but a huge amount of money. This new Board is just wasting our tax dollars.
What?
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 14:54 — Bob_SconceAre you asking me to prove a negative? Please prove to me that you haven't been cheating on your wife. I've gone into why her accusations are bogus in a couple of other places. For one, her accusation that the company is biased because somebody in one of their offices has past association with KIPP -- that person doesn't even do superintendent searches! (Check his bio on the company's website.) She offers no evidence to backup her accusation that the company pushes only charter-school favorable candidates (besides, if they did, they'd be sorely disappointed here, where the GA controls access to charters).
You're condemning this company on mighty thin evidence.
Top 2 or 3 -- right. Weren't there only like 5 bidders total?
Nearly $5M for land purchase
Did they actually close on the purchase? Even if they did, that's not an actual cost -- it's just trading one asset form (money) into a somewhat less liquid asset (land). Any real estate commissions paid are clearly sunk cost, but otherwise the only loss on the land is any difference between purchase price and current value.
No, read it again...
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 16:48 — MarvinSchwartzAre you asking me to prove a negative?
No, I am not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking if what the article said was inaccurate. It's a yes or no question.
Has Heidrick recommended candidates that advocate charter schools or privatization - yes or no? The author of the article specifically cited Buffalo and Philadelphia as examples. True or not? And as it relates to Richard Greene, was he the COO of the KIPP Foundation, yes or no? Did the KIPP Foundation want to do an expansion of its services in Houston, yes or no? The author of the piece chooses to connect the dots on these issues and comes to a conclusion; you obviously come to a different conclusion, which is fine. But don't act like the article is a load of garbage because you don't like the conclusions.
Upon digging around these sites and articles a little more, I have two greater concerns. First, very little of Heidrick's work seems to be in the field of education, unlike, say, the NCSBA, whose primary work is in education. Second, despite promises of transparency, the Houston school board and Heidrick have agreed to only release the name of one finalist. I wonder if we can expect the same here. And I'm not condemning Heidrick - I just wonder what gave them the edge, at a greater price.
Top 2 or 3 -- right. Weren't there only like 5 bidders total?
Actually there were only 4 - it was a poor attempt at humor. They were the second highest bid, at nearly twice the 3rd highest bid.
Did they actually close on the purchase?
Yes, and they began site planning and other work there. So, until they unload it, the school system owns a chunk of partially-developed land they will never use. Like I said, lost money.
Bringing it back to the original question, I will again say it like this: the new junta will spend whatever they please on whatever they want without regard for fiscal discipline if it fits their agenda, such as paying Del Burns not to work, paying Kieran Shanahan to do Ann Majestic's job in court, and paying Tom Farr for a worthless report. So cries of fiscal responsibility and obstructionism from Goldman is just hilarious to me.
Ok...
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 17:18 — Bob_SconceHas Heidrick recommended candidates that advocate charter schools or privatization - yes or no? The author of the article specifically cited Buffalo and Philadelphia as examples.
I imagine that, on occasion, they have recommended candidates who support charter schools. But, so what? Should they use that as a litmus test, denying candidates who support such schools? My point is that there's no evidence in the other direction -- that they use charter school advocacy as a litmus test for candidates they recommend, which is what she's asserting.
The Buffalo and Philly examples were of schools where H&S "subcontracted to private agencies," not of charter-school-supporting candidates. (I've seen that they did subcontract, but don't know why it's an issue. Subcontracting is common practice.)
You talk of connecting the dots -- my point is that she's connecting the dots in an almost paranoid manner which you don't see anybody else doing. In my book, that makes her part of the lunatic fringe, especially when juxtaposed with her other charter-hostile writing at the examiner.
the Houston school board and Heidrick have agreed to only release the name of one finalist
Yes, and I hope that they do the same thing here. Suppose the top 3 are announced, and only one is chosen -- the other two have to go back to their current jobs, where their current employers will know that they are actively looking for other positions. If I knew that applying for a job meant that the employer would publicize the fact that I applied, that would be a strong disincentive for me to apply -- I'd pass and wait for the folks who can keep a secret.
That's especially true for Terry Grier (HISD's current superintendent), who had only been Superintendent for 18 months in San Diego before taking the Houston job (before San Diego, he was in Guilford County).
Would the subcontractor be
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 18:28 — danofncWould the subcontractor be doing all or part of the search?
Would the subcontractor's fee be considered an expense, to be paid outside of the original fee?
Is H&S being hired to find a superintendent or to find a firm to look for a superintendent?
Can you really not see why subcontracting would be an issue?
DOn't know...
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 18:42 — Bob_SconceIt's possible to make the subcontractor into an issue, but there's nothing inherently wrong with subcontracting.
Just because you're paranoid...
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 17:28 — MarvinSchwartz...doesn't mean that everyone's not out to get you! ;-)
Besides, the board has made
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 14:40 — jenmanBesides, the board has made it clear they are philosophically opposed to the NCSBA and that certainly had to figure into the decision not to retain them despite being the lowest bidder by far.
As somebody who once worked for the State of IL where we were required to hire the lowest bidder, that is usually not the best choice. Especially when they are the lowest bidder by far. Seriously, when somebody is the lowest bidder by far, that's usually a red flag.
What's your point? The
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 08:10 — woodstockWhat's your point? The things you named are things a lot of folks support ...some are not even controversial. Hiring an executive search firm and getting Burns out of the way were essential. Relocating the school to Rolesville -- which is costing nothing even close to the fictitious $15M -- was simply common sense and only the most narrow-minded and angry critics of the new board were against that move.
Coincidence or not - Luebke opinion
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 19:48 — Solon77Is her blog post a coincidence with Luebke's opinion today on school district spending ? With fiscal concerns at a priority the board really hasn't done anything on the financial front - unless you count the failed witch hunt of the $1m (.1%) legal budget. The is DG's was of publicizing - "I am doing something"
That is so funny you would
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 20:51 — zandeThat is so funny you would say that. I read Luebke's piece this morning and that is the first thing I thought of when I saw this blog post. DG is not exactly a prolific blogger so this coming out today was quite the coincidence.
Knowing a bit about the lack
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 20:55 — HJ2ss2Knowing a bit about the lack of communication and difficulty getting answers in the County, I suspect she tried through the proper channels with no success. Before judging her action, I would like a better understanding of how they met her efforts.
Bus drivers and phones...
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 16:26 — Bob_SconceIt seems to me that the bus drivers shouldn't be using the phones except for emergencies and, as a result, a pre-paid phone probably makes the best choice -- looking at Walmart's website, it appears the district could buy that, retail, for about $110/bus/year, and likely a fraction of that if it bought them direct.
A prepaid phone wouldn't
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 17:11 — danofncA prepaid phone wouldn't allow the district to contact the bus drivers since it would be off until the emergency happened.
Not true
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 17:19 — jeffrey1I've used prepaid phones for years. You buy a phone for $20, you put 100 minutes on the phone (another $10), and you use it like a regular cellphone (to make and receive calls, text messages, etc.). When the minutes run out, you load it with more minutes. My cell phone costs are less than $100 per year.
Tracfone, Virgin, STI Wireless, T-Mobile are just some of the dozens of companies that offer prepaid cell phones.
Why should she expect to get
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 15:56 — wireless200Why should she expect to get these items when no one could ever get good test score data out of them for years?
Lots of good questions.
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 15:39 — CaryCurmudgeonLots of good questions. Wouldn't Dr. Hargens, as acting Superintendent, be expected to have answers to all of these questions and to address the board's concerns?
very odd
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 16:30 — Athey01If she had unanswered questions, I don't understand why she did not follow the proper channel of command, up to Dr. Hargens. Also, I would assume she discussed with Mr. Sutton, the head of the finance committee. The questions are valid, but to make these type of remarks in a public forum is very odd to me.
Well...
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 16:37 — Bob_SconceNote that it took her 5 months to make these comments publicly. Based on the blog post, it was posted after repeated private requests.
Would be interesting to know
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 17:05 — CaryCurmudgeonWould be interesting to know whether Dr. Hargens was asked to help get answers. I have had the impression that she was playing well with the new board majority.
It would be interesting to
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 17:08 — danofncIt would be interesting to know who DG asked, specifically.
If she just wondered aloud at a meeting and is now wondering why no one answered her, that's troubling.
If she's asked for the information through proper channels for 4 or 5 months and hasn't gotten a response, that's troubling as well.
Of course, I find it troubling that a BoE member is airing her dirty laundry with staff on a blog. It doesn't strike me as very professional.
Yet I'm sure
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 20:17 — Dove314Yet I'm sure that because it is Ms. Goldman, many here will excuse or justify her actions and call staff deserving of her public criticism without detailed knowledge of the circumstances.
And..
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 20:39 — Bob_SconceI'm sure that merely because it is Ms. Goldman, many here will question her actions, her motivations and the accuracy of her comments without any evidence to the contrary.
Tis the nature of "team
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 21:50 — Dove314Tis the nature of "team politics", isn't it? People pick a "side", defend those on their side no matter how ridiculous the arguments sometimes get, and dismiss or attack the posts of those who dare to disagree or find a middle ground. Defending the "team" becomes more important that objective examination of the teams' actions. The worst part is the near "all or nothing" aspect. Compromise and common ground are completely lost.
Accountability=middle ground.
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 22:18 — DrActualFactualI think any voter from either side that voted in the last election would expect whomever is in office to get results/answers from staff and if there are still outstanding questions from January--that seems to be an unreasonable length of time to have to wait. I think any sitting board member would agree that waiting this long for a response is far from ideal. If any/ALL the board members have to vote on $$$$ issues without pertinent info in hand they'd likely all be uncomfortable in doing so. There are many voters who will hold each and every BOE member individually and collectively responsible for moving forward regardless of which minority/majority team they are on. If staff doesn't respond to either side they will ALL look bad (including the staff--one for not getting results and one for not giving results).