In this memo are factually incorrect statements that ultimately led the school board to approve a 6.5% teacher pay hike based on claims in it that the district had the funding available over a three-year period to pay for this pay increase. At the time this was a factually incorrect assessment. According to sources however, it is likely that neither the Superintendent nor the interim CBO were aware of this fact.
At the outset, it is important to realize that this assessment should not be construed as an attack on teachers, the Davis Teachers’ Association, or their worthiness to receive a pay increase. On the contrary, the Vanguard believes that in general, teachers are well underpaid for the services they render to a community and to society as a whole. Rather, this points to specific problems in DJUSD at the time, that led to the need for changes to be made both in terms of fiscal accounting practices and personnel.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the problems that led to this incorrect assessment have been taken care of. The District’s commissioning of FCMAT as discussed in our investigative series on the district’s former Chief Budget Officer revealed key flaws in the district accounting practices–flaws that have now been corrected by current CBO Bruce Colby and new Superintendent James Hammond. In other words, these problems will not repeat themselves in the future, however, they do have a lasting impact the district’s current budget situation.
According to Bruce Colby, this pay increase cost the district roughly $2 million in salary increases. Looking at that within the context of the original and now current budget shortfalls, one quickly realizes the magnitude of such a situation.
The Memo
Beginning on page 2 of the memo the former Superintendent writes:
“Our budget experts, Cathi Vogel [Ms. Vogel was the interim CBO who was hired to temporarily fill Mr. Tahir Ahad’s position and occupied the position until the hire of Bruce Colby in 2007] and Maureen Fitzerald, both of whom are fiscally conservative in a responsible way, have said that the three-year projections of ongoing expenditures have ongoing revenues. Maureen has assured me of this. Thus, the funds are there to support whatever the board wants to do–to fund the 6.5% for all employees or to use some or all of those funds for other purposes. Thus, a fiscally conservative superintendent would say that the funds are there for board decision-making, according to board priorities about what is in the best interests of the district, all things considered.”
He continues:
“Given that the funding is available, given the other considerations of funds for the district programs, and given the effect on ALT members of board choices, I do think and would recommend that the board fund the 6.5% improvement to the ALT salary schedules as the next priority item to fund. In fact, I do think that would be in the best interests of the district and board priorities, all things considered.”
A board member then asked:
“Since I have been on the board, the unappropriated amount of the ending fund balance has always been considered “one time money.” How can we justify this change?”
The Superintendent responds in his memo:
“The fiscal solvency of the district’s budget is detailed in the three year projected budgets, based on a 6.5% increase to all employee salary schedules [this included administrative pay raises at 6.5% in addition to teacher pay raises]… Maureen assures us that the ongoing expenditures of 6.5% increases to employee compensation packages have ongoing revenues to support those expenditures.”
Inaccurate Information Provided to the Board
The board was told that they would have to use one-time reserves the first year of this pay increase in order to cover the expenditures. After that, monies would become available on an on-going basis to pay for the salary increase. The board was told that this increase would thus only require a one-time use of one-time money. As it turned out, this was not accurate either.
The three-year ongoing fund projection was wrong. There were at least two glaring errors in it.
First, the budget was missing some positions that were being paid $400,000. FCMAT discovered this in their report to the school district.
Second, there were changes to special education funding that were not factored in and this accounted for nearly half a million dollars in expenditures. Both of these errors accounted for $900,000 or just under half of the money spent in the salary increase.
The district would keep itself fiscally solvent and the budget on the positive side by spending the district’s voluntary (as opposed to the state mandated) reserves. As those reserves have become depleted however, the district has run into huge fiscal problems. [On a side note, districts such as Woodland right now are using their reserves in order to remain fiscally solvent and they will likely run into similar budget problems in the next few years if this economic downturn continues].
What is the root of these problems? According to a board member at that time, the problem largely consisted of problematic budget tracking procedures that were in enacted under Tahir Ahad.
Again please see our four-part series on the former CBO for a more detailed explanation.
Basically the money in the district was poorly tracked. It was difficult to distinguish on-going funds from one-time money. Carry-over money and other one-time money was rolled into the general fund masking the differences between funds and funding sources.
It is the best guess that the Superintendent probably did not know at the time he was providing the board with incorrect information.
During this time, the role of keeping track of the money had fallen to interim CBO Cathi Vogel. Ms. Vogel repeatedly told the board that it was difficult and murky to figure out what was going on in the books. As the FCMAT report makes clear, the former CBO had left the district with the books in a complete mess. In addition to FCMAT and the work of an independent auditor, it would take present CBO Bruce Colby nearly a year to figure out the district’s fiscal situation. These problems are now corrected and this type of problem will not happen in the future.
Nevertheless, the damage was largely done. The district has to heavily rely on their professional staff to make assessments about the viability of new spending programs. There is little doubt that the district is inclined to give teachers salary hikes when the money is available. However, they need to be able to make fiscally sound decisions based on the advice given by professional staff. They need to be able to make informed decisions.
During this incident they received incorrect information based on sloppy accounting practices of past employees and poor decision making by present employees. As a result, the district has dismissed employees who were not providing them with good advice, and put into those positions, individuals who they trust to accurately tell them the truth of their fiscal situation.
One cannot stress enough the importance of the FCMAT report or the changes that the district enacted as a result of that report.
Again, for further information please take a look at the Vanguard’s reporting on FCMAT and the problems with the previous accounting system and subsequent changes to the system that have made the district far more sound in its fiscal decision-making.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
At what point in time did it become clear that the original memo presented false assumptions?
At what point in time did it become clear that the original memo presented false assumptions?
At what point in time did it become clear that the original memo presented false assumptions?
At what point in time did it become clear that the original memo presented false assumptions?
I would guess in December of 2006 when the FCMAT report came out.
I would guess in December of 2006 when the FCMAT report came out.
I would guess in December of 2006 when the FCMAT report came out.
I would guess in December of 2006 when the FCMAT report came out.
DPD,
Thanks for this well-done piece. This should be required reading for every Davis voter being asked to pony up more parcel tax dollars to fund a system obviously lacking fiscally-responsibly decision processes.
I support raising school-system employee pay only if the system adopts and implements a pay-for-performance model, and eliminates problem performers before they damage so many of their customers (students). In this case, it would be likely that the flawed financial analysis of the budget/funding situation would have been accurate… or at least the employee(s) responsible would know that their poor performance on this matter is something that must be corrected.
Certainly there is more to consider, but correcting the system that protects all but the criminally-incompetent will go a long way in improving the product that we are constantly asked to pay more for.
DPD,
Thanks for this well-done piece. This should be required reading for every Davis voter being asked to pony up more parcel tax dollars to fund a system obviously lacking fiscally-responsibly decision processes.
I support raising school-system employee pay only if the system adopts and implements a pay-for-performance model, and eliminates problem performers before they damage so many of their customers (students). In this case, it would be likely that the flawed financial analysis of the budget/funding situation would have been accurate… or at least the employee(s) responsible would know that their poor performance on this matter is something that must be corrected.
Certainly there is more to consider, but correcting the system that protects all but the criminally-incompetent will go a long way in improving the product that we are constantly asked to pay more for.
DPD,
Thanks for this well-done piece. This should be required reading for every Davis voter being asked to pony up more parcel tax dollars to fund a system obviously lacking fiscally-responsibly decision processes.
I support raising school-system employee pay only if the system adopts and implements a pay-for-performance model, and eliminates problem performers before they damage so many of their customers (students). In this case, it would be likely that the flawed financial analysis of the budget/funding situation would have been accurate… or at least the employee(s) responsible would know that their poor performance on this matter is something that must be corrected.
Certainly there is more to consider, but correcting the system that protects all but the criminally-incompetent will go a long way in improving the product that we are constantly asked to pay more for.
DPD,
Thanks for this well-done piece. This should be required reading for every Davis voter being asked to pony up more parcel tax dollars to fund a system obviously lacking fiscally-responsibly decision processes.
I support raising school-system employee pay only if the system adopts and implements a pay-for-performance model, and eliminates problem performers before they damage so many of their customers (students). In this case, it would be likely that the flawed financial analysis of the budget/funding situation would have been accurate… or at least the employee(s) responsible would know that their poor performance on this matter is something that must be corrected.
Certainly there is more to consider, but correcting the system that protects all but the criminally-incompetent will go a long way in improving the product that we are constantly asked to pay more for.
“I support raising school-system employee pay only if the system adopts and implements a pay-for-performance model, and eliminates problem performers before they damage so many of their customers (students).”
Can the district do that?
Do state regulations prevent the district from doing that?
“I support raising school-system employee pay only if the system adopts and implements a pay-for-performance model, and eliminates problem performers before they damage so many of their customers (students).”
Can the district do that?
Do state regulations prevent the district from doing that?
“I support raising school-system employee pay only if the system adopts and implements a pay-for-performance model, and eliminates problem performers before they damage so many of their customers (students).”
Can the district do that?
Do state regulations prevent the district from doing that?
“I support raising school-system employee pay only if the system adopts and implements a pay-for-performance model, and eliminates problem performers before they damage so many of their customers (students).”
Can the district do that?
Do state regulations prevent the district from doing that?
Not only that, but the teacher’s union would never support it, and they are governed by a CBA.
Not only that, but the teacher’s union would never support it, and they are governed by a CBA.
Not only that, but the teacher’s union would never support it, and they are governed by a CBA.
Not only that, but the teacher’s union would never support it, and they are governed by a CBA.
“This should be required reading for every Davis voter being asked to pony up more parcel tax dollars to fund a system obviously lacking fiscally-responsibly decision processes.”
Did you read DPD’s piece? It clearly states that these serious errors were made in the past, but now the books have been cleared up and they are not having the same kind of dubious accounting at the present time. The system HAS BEEN corrected.
“This should be required reading for every Davis voter being asked to pony up more parcel tax dollars to fund a system obviously lacking fiscally-responsibly decision processes.”
Did you read DPD’s piece? It clearly states that these serious errors were made in the past, but now the books have been cleared up and they are not having the same kind of dubious accounting at the present time. The system HAS BEEN corrected.
“This should be required reading for every Davis voter being asked to pony up more parcel tax dollars to fund a system obviously lacking fiscally-responsibly decision processes.”
Did you read DPD’s piece? It clearly states that these serious errors were made in the past, but now the books have been cleared up and they are not having the same kind of dubious accounting at the present time. The system HAS BEEN corrected.
“This should be required reading for every Davis voter being asked to pony up more parcel tax dollars to fund a system obviously lacking fiscally-responsibly decision processes.”
Did you read DPD’s piece? It clearly states that these serious errors were made in the past, but now the books have been cleared up and they are not having the same kind of dubious accounting at the present time. The system HAS BEEN corrected.
As far as accountability measures, it appears that FCMAT came in and helped to assess what was going on in the district. The current board hired a new CBO, specifically insisted that district employees (CBO in particular) not be allowed to run side jobs or businesses the way that Ahad did.
There is also a significant amount of district scrutiny connected with this blog.
Unfortunately, the damage has been done.
Could it have been prevented? Possibly with closer earlier scrutiny of Ahad’s performance. Ahad was unprofessional in leaving his accounting in a mess to where it couldn’t be checked so easily.
Could it happen again?
It seems much less likely to happen in the near future because this recent experience is so fresh on everyone’s minds.
As far as accountability measures, it appears that FCMAT came in and helped to assess what was going on in the district. The current board hired a new CBO, specifically insisted that district employees (CBO in particular) not be allowed to run side jobs or businesses the way that Ahad did.
There is also a significant amount of district scrutiny connected with this blog.
Unfortunately, the damage has been done.
Could it have been prevented? Possibly with closer earlier scrutiny of Ahad’s performance. Ahad was unprofessional in leaving his accounting in a mess to where it couldn’t be checked so easily.
Could it happen again?
It seems much less likely to happen in the near future because this recent experience is so fresh on everyone’s minds.
As far as accountability measures, it appears that FCMAT came in and helped to assess what was going on in the district. The current board hired a new CBO, specifically insisted that district employees (CBO in particular) not be allowed to run side jobs or businesses the way that Ahad did.
There is also a significant amount of district scrutiny connected with this blog.
Unfortunately, the damage has been done.
Could it have been prevented? Possibly with closer earlier scrutiny of Ahad’s performance. Ahad was unprofessional in leaving his accounting in a mess to where it couldn’t be checked so easily.
Could it happen again?
It seems much less likely to happen in the near future because this recent experience is so fresh on everyone’s minds.
As far as accountability measures, it appears that FCMAT came in and helped to assess what was going on in the district. The current board hired a new CBO, specifically insisted that district employees (CBO in particular) not be allowed to run side jobs or businesses the way that Ahad did.
There is also a significant amount of district scrutiny connected with this blog.
Unfortunately, the damage has been done.
Could it have been prevented? Possibly with closer earlier scrutiny of Ahad’s performance. Ahad was unprofessional in leaving his accounting in a mess to where it couldn’t be checked so easily.
Could it happen again?
It seems much less likely to happen in the near future because this recent experience is so fresh on everyone’s minds.
“Could it have been prevented? Possibly with closer earlier scrutiny of Ahad’s performance. Ahad was unprofessional in leaving his accounting in a mess to where it couldn’t be checked so easily.”
I would say definitely with greater scrutiny by the boards. Don Saylor was the lone dissenter when Ahad was hired and the lone critic. Jim Provenza replaced Saylor and became the lone critic, occasionally joined by BJ Kline. It was not until people like Marty West and Joan Sallee left the board and were replaced by current members Taylor, Daleiden, and Sheila Allen, that things changed. Tahir saw the writing on the wall and left. They put in a tough new conflict of interest policy. They fired David Murphy at great cost–but you can see what the cost of keeping him was.
“Could it have been prevented? Possibly with closer earlier scrutiny of Ahad’s performance. Ahad was unprofessional in leaving his accounting in a mess to where it couldn’t be checked so easily.”
I would say definitely with greater scrutiny by the boards. Don Saylor was the lone dissenter when Ahad was hired and the lone critic. Jim Provenza replaced Saylor and became the lone critic, occasionally joined by BJ Kline. It was not until people like Marty West and Joan Sallee left the board and were replaced by current members Taylor, Daleiden, and Sheila Allen, that things changed. Tahir saw the writing on the wall and left. They put in a tough new conflict of interest policy. They fired David Murphy at great cost–but you can see what the cost of keeping him was.
“Could it have been prevented? Possibly with closer earlier scrutiny of Ahad’s performance. Ahad was unprofessional in leaving his accounting in a mess to where it couldn’t be checked so easily.”
I would say definitely with greater scrutiny by the boards. Don Saylor was the lone dissenter when Ahad was hired and the lone critic. Jim Provenza replaced Saylor and became the lone critic, occasionally joined by BJ Kline. It was not until people like Marty West and Joan Sallee left the board and were replaced by current members Taylor, Daleiden, and Sheila Allen, that things changed. Tahir saw the writing on the wall and left. They put in a tough new conflict of interest policy. They fired David Murphy at great cost–but you can see what the cost of keeping him was.
“Could it have been prevented? Possibly with closer earlier scrutiny of Ahad’s performance. Ahad was unprofessional in leaving his accounting in a mess to where it couldn’t be checked so easily.”
I would say definitely with greater scrutiny by the boards. Don Saylor was the lone dissenter when Ahad was hired and the lone critic. Jim Provenza replaced Saylor and became the lone critic, occasionally joined by BJ Kline. It was not until people like Marty West and Joan Sallee left the board and were replaced by current members Taylor, Daleiden, and Sheila Allen, that things changed. Tahir saw the writing on the wall and left. They put in a tough new conflict of interest policy. They fired David Murphy at great cost–but you can see what the cost of keeping him was.
So the way I read it, district employees (most of whom are teachers) received raises that they (DJUSD) couldn’t afford.
Does this mean that the district could eventually work its way out of this if the state provides the COLAs for the next few years?
So the way I read it, district employees (most of whom are teachers) received raises that they (DJUSD) couldn’t afford.
Does this mean that the district could eventually work its way out of this if the state provides the COLAs for the next few years?
So the way I read it, district employees (most of whom are teachers) received raises that they (DJUSD) couldn’t afford.
Does this mean that the district could eventually work its way out of this if the state provides the COLAs for the next few years?
So the way I read it, district employees (most of whom are teachers) received raises that they (DJUSD) couldn’t afford.
Does this mean that the district could eventually work its way out of this if the state provides the COLAs for the next few years?
The words “did not know” should read “should have known”.
How do we know this will not happen in the future? Because Colby says so? Because they fired the incompentents and put in people they think they can now trust? How do the school district know for sure these new employees can be trusted?
For instance, what stops developers from promising schools, if the operating expenses are not there to run what is promised?
Is there any regulation in place that prevents a school district employee from being employed by a consulting firm that has previously done business with the district for a period of say five years?
We are now a million dollars in the hole because of a pay increase the school district cannot afford to pay? But you want the taxpayers to fund this fiscal mismanagement with another parcel tax? You’ve got to be kidding!
The words “did not know” should read “should have known”.
How do we know this will not happen in the future? Because Colby says so? Because they fired the incompentents and put in people they think they can now trust? How do the school district know for sure these new employees can be trusted?
For instance, what stops developers from promising schools, if the operating expenses are not there to run what is promised?
Is there any regulation in place that prevents a school district employee from being employed by a consulting firm that has previously done business with the district for a period of say five years?
We are now a million dollars in the hole because of a pay increase the school district cannot afford to pay? But you want the taxpayers to fund this fiscal mismanagement with another parcel tax? You’ve got to be kidding!
The words “did not know” should read “should have known”.
How do we know this will not happen in the future? Because Colby says so? Because they fired the incompentents and put in people they think they can now trust? How do the school district know for sure these new employees can be trusted?
For instance, what stops developers from promising schools, if the operating expenses are not there to run what is promised?
Is there any regulation in place that prevents a school district employee from being employed by a consulting firm that has previously done business with the district for a period of say five years?
We are now a million dollars in the hole because of a pay increase the school district cannot afford to pay? But you want the taxpayers to fund this fiscal mismanagement with another parcel tax? You’ve got to be kidding!
The words “did not know” should read “should have known”.
How do we know this will not happen in the future? Because Colby says so? Because they fired the incompentents and put in people they think they can now trust? How do the school district know for sure these new employees can be trusted?
For instance, what stops developers from promising schools, if the operating expenses are not there to run what is promised?
Is there any regulation in place that prevents a school district employee from being employed by a consulting firm that has previously done business with the district for a period of say five years?
We are now a million dollars in the hole because of a pay increase the school district cannot afford to pay? But you want the taxpayers to fund this fiscal mismanagement with another parcel tax? You’ve got to be kidding!
It sounds like there is general agreement that the teachers deserved the salary adjustments – the problem was the money for the salary increase was not there. You could argue the raises should not have happened or you could argue the money should have come from some other place. One conclusion is that they needed to grant the raises, but did not have the money so they should have raised the parcel tax issue earlier than they have. The problem is not the teacher raises but rather the district lacks funds to carry on the way it should. Bottom line – Davis needs to pass the parcel tax.
It sounds like there is general agreement that the teachers deserved the salary adjustments – the problem was the money for the salary increase was not there. You could argue the raises should not have happened or you could argue the money should have come from some other place. One conclusion is that they needed to grant the raises, but did not have the money so they should have raised the parcel tax issue earlier than they have. The problem is not the teacher raises but rather the district lacks funds to carry on the way it should. Bottom line – Davis needs to pass the parcel tax.
It sounds like there is general agreement that the teachers deserved the salary adjustments – the problem was the money for the salary increase was not there. You could argue the raises should not have happened or you could argue the money should have come from some other place. One conclusion is that they needed to grant the raises, but did not have the money so they should have raised the parcel tax issue earlier than they have. The problem is not the teacher raises but rather the district lacks funds to carry on the way it should. Bottom line – Davis needs to pass the parcel tax.
It sounds like there is general agreement that the teachers deserved the salary adjustments – the problem was the money for the salary increase was not there. You could argue the raises should not have happened or you could argue the money should have come from some other place. One conclusion is that they needed to grant the raises, but did not have the money so they should have raised the parcel tax issue earlier than they have. The problem is not the teacher raises but rather the district lacks funds to carry on the way it should. Bottom line – Davis needs to pass the parcel tax.
“For instance, what stops developers from promising schools, if the operating expenses are not there to run what is promised?”
I don’t see what this has to do with the district. You can hardly blame the district for something a developer said.
You can, however, blame them for caving to parents and building an unnecessary school – and I do put the blame on the board who made that decision. Which, by the way, is not the current board.
“For instance, what stops developers from promising schools, if the operating expenses are not there to run what is promised?”
I don’t see what this has to do with the district. You can hardly blame the district for something a developer said.
You can, however, blame them for caving to parents and building an unnecessary school – and I do put the blame on the board who made that decision. Which, by the way, is not the current board.
“For instance, what stops developers from promising schools, if the operating expenses are not there to run what is promised?”
I don’t see what this has to do with the district. You can hardly blame the district for something a developer said.
You can, however, blame them for caving to parents and building an unnecessary school – and I do put the blame on the board who made that decision. Which, by the way, is not the current board.
“For instance, what stops developers from promising schools, if the operating expenses are not there to run what is promised?”
I don’t see what this has to do with the district. You can hardly blame the district for something a developer said.
You can, however, blame them for caving to parents and building an unnecessary school – and I do put the blame on the board who made that decision. Which, by the way, is not the current board.
For instance, what stops developers from promising schools, if the operating expenses are not there to run what is promised?
Did you live in Davis in 2000? Did you vote in the May school bond (Measure K) election that year? How did you vote in that election?
Measure K provided funds to allow for the building of Montgomery, Korematsu, and Harper. It passed by 85.5% A lot of your fellow residents thought it was a good idea at the time.
If that bond measure had been voted down, then Valley Oak might still be open.
So if you don’t want to see new schools being built when we can’t afford to staff them, then weigh in appropriately on bond measures.
If you want to guarantee that another school closes, then kill the parcel tax.
For instance, what stops developers from promising schools, if the operating expenses are not there to run what is promised?
Did you live in Davis in 2000? Did you vote in the May school bond (Measure K) election that year? How did you vote in that election?
Measure K provided funds to allow for the building of Montgomery, Korematsu, and Harper. It passed by 85.5% A lot of your fellow residents thought it was a good idea at the time.
If that bond measure had been voted down, then Valley Oak might still be open.
So if you don’t want to see new schools being built when we can’t afford to staff them, then weigh in appropriately on bond measures.
If you want to guarantee that another school closes, then kill the parcel tax.
For instance, what stops developers from promising schools, if the operating expenses are not there to run what is promised?
Did you live in Davis in 2000? Did you vote in the May school bond (Measure K) election that year? How did you vote in that election?
Measure K provided funds to allow for the building of Montgomery, Korematsu, and Harper. It passed by 85.5% A lot of your fellow residents thought it was a good idea at the time.
If that bond measure had been voted down, then Valley Oak might still be open.
So if you don’t want to see new schools being built when we can’t afford to staff them, then weigh in appropriately on bond measures.
If you want to guarantee that another school closes, then kill the parcel tax.
For instance, what stops developers from promising schools, if the operating expenses are not there to run what is promised?
Did you live in Davis in 2000? Did you vote in the May school bond (Measure K) election that year? How did you vote in that election?
Measure K provided funds to allow for the building of Montgomery, Korematsu, and Harper. It passed by 85.5% A lot of your fellow residents thought it was a good idea at the time.
If that bond measure had been voted down, then Valley Oak might still be open.
So if you don’t want to see new schools being built when we can’t afford to staff them, then weigh in appropriately on bond measures.
If you want to guarantee that another school closes, then kill the parcel tax.
Chester is correct if he wants to limit this pay-for-performance idea to the people who do the budget work. If he wants to apply it to teachers it will be DOA. These school fiscal officers need to be held accountable. We need some sort of school system accountability at the top. Sort of a Sarbanes-Oxley bill for school superintendents and budget officers. We have now scene both Dixon and Davis school systems get decimated by mistakes from officials who simply walk away with new jobs or fat pensions while the mess they left behind ravages communities, employees and educational outcomes. If what Murphy and Ahad did was not criminally negligent it should be made so.
Chester is correct if he wants to limit this pay-for-performance idea to the people who do the budget work. If he wants to apply it to teachers it will be DOA. These school fiscal officers need to be held accountable. We need some sort of school system accountability at the top. Sort of a Sarbanes-Oxley bill for school superintendents and budget officers. We have now scene both Dixon and Davis school systems get decimated by mistakes from officials who simply walk away with new jobs or fat pensions while the mess they left behind ravages communities, employees and educational outcomes. If what Murphy and Ahad did was not criminally negligent it should be made so.
Chester is correct if he wants to limit this pay-for-performance idea to the people who do the budget work. If he wants to apply it to teachers it will be DOA. These school fiscal officers need to be held accountable. We need some sort of school system accountability at the top. Sort of a Sarbanes-Oxley bill for school superintendents and budget officers. We have now scene both Dixon and Davis school systems get decimated by mistakes from officials who simply walk away with new jobs or fat pensions while the mess they left behind ravages communities, employees and educational outcomes. If what Murphy and Ahad did was not criminally negligent it should be made so.
Chester is correct if he wants to limit this pay-for-performance idea to the people who do the budget work. If he wants to apply it to teachers it will be DOA. These school fiscal officers need to be held accountable. We need some sort of school system accountability at the top. Sort of a Sarbanes-Oxley bill for school superintendents and budget officers. We have now scene both Dixon and Davis school systems get decimated by mistakes from officials who simply walk away with new jobs or fat pensions while the mess they left behind ravages communities, employees and educational outcomes. If what Murphy and Ahad did was not criminally negligent it should be made so.
“So if you don’t want to see new schools being built when we can’t afford to staff them, then weigh in appropriately on bond measures.”
Don’t blame the public, when the school district/board were not honest in the first place. The public was not aware of the facts. To turn around and ask the public to cough up more money, without proper safeguards in place, takes a lot of nerve!
“These school fiscal officers need to be held accountable. We need some sort of school system accountability at the top. Sort of a Sarbanes-Oxley bill for school superintendents and budget officers. We have now scene both Dixon and Davis school systems get decimated by mistakes from officials who simply walk away with new jobs or fat pensions while the mess they left behind ravages communities, employees and educational outcomes. If what Murphy and Ahad did was not criminally negligent it should be made so.”
Amen!!! Until we hold upper management accountable, NO ON MEASURE R. They did it in the energy scandel. Upper management must now sign off on all financial statements, and be held accountable for them. Why not school officials? They are making big enough salaries to warrant it.
“So if you don’t want to see new schools being built when we can’t afford to staff them, then weigh in appropriately on bond measures.”
Don’t blame the public, when the school district/board were not honest in the first place. The public was not aware of the facts. To turn around and ask the public to cough up more money, without proper safeguards in place, takes a lot of nerve!
“These school fiscal officers need to be held accountable. We need some sort of school system accountability at the top. Sort of a Sarbanes-Oxley bill for school superintendents and budget officers. We have now scene both Dixon and Davis school systems get decimated by mistakes from officials who simply walk away with new jobs or fat pensions while the mess they left behind ravages communities, employees and educational outcomes. If what Murphy and Ahad did was not criminally negligent it should be made so.”
Amen!!! Until we hold upper management accountable, NO ON MEASURE R. They did it in the energy scandel. Upper management must now sign off on all financial statements, and be held accountable for them. Why not school officials? They are making big enough salaries to warrant it.
“So if you don’t want to see new schools being built when we can’t afford to staff them, then weigh in appropriately on bond measures.”
Don’t blame the public, when the school district/board were not honest in the first place. The public was not aware of the facts. To turn around and ask the public to cough up more money, without proper safeguards in place, takes a lot of nerve!
“These school fiscal officers need to be held accountable. We need some sort of school system accountability at the top. Sort of a Sarbanes-Oxley bill for school superintendents and budget officers. We have now scene both Dixon and Davis school systems get decimated by mistakes from officials who simply walk away with new jobs or fat pensions while the mess they left behind ravages communities, employees and educational outcomes. If what Murphy and Ahad did was not criminally negligent it should be made so.”
Amen!!! Until we hold upper management accountable, NO ON MEASURE R. They did it in the energy scandel. Upper management must now sign off on all financial statements, and be held accountable for them. Why not school officials? They are making big enough salaries to warrant it.
“So if you don’t want to see new schools being built when we can’t afford to staff them, then weigh in appropriately on bond measures.”
Don’t blame the public, when the school district/board were not honest in the first place. The public was not aware of the facts. To turn around and ask the public to cough up more money, without proper safeguards in place, takes a lot of nerve!
“These school fiscal officers need to be held accountable. We need some sort of school system accountability at the top. Sort of a Sarbanes-Oxley bill for school superintendents and budget officers. We have now scene both Dixon and Davis school systems get decimated by mistakes from officials who simply walk away with new jobs or fat pensions while the mess they left behind ravages communities, employees and educational outcomes. If what Murphy and Ahad did was not criminally negligent it should be made so.”
Amen!!! Until we hold upper management accountable, NO ON MEASURE R. They did it in the energy scandel. Upper management must now sign off on all financial statements, and be held accountable for them. Why not school officials? They are making big enough salaries to warrant it.