Click on  July 2007 | Apr 2006 | Mar 2006 | Dec 2005 | Nov 2005 | Oct 2005 | Sept 2005 | Aug 2005

 JULY 2006

Mequon Thiensville School District Approves 2006-07 Budget

The Mequon Thiensville School Board unanimously approved the preliminary budget for the 2006-07 school year. The budget cannot be finalized until after the 3^rd Friday in September enrollment count and certification of state aid and property values in October. Key points to this years’ budget include:

• Salary freeze for all administrative and support staff generating $32,400 in savings.
• Elimination of a courier position for a savings of $55,000.
• Increased user fees for elementary school band and orchestra to $25.
• Increased parking fees at the high school from $200 to $250 generating a total of $24,000 in revenue.
• Increased athletic fees from $75 to $100 per activity for an estimated increased revenue of $28,650.
• Reduction of approximately 12.2 FTE teaching and specialist positions
• Reduction of approximately 6.5 FTE support staff positions.
• Reduction of 2 FTE custodian positions and one .5 FTE case manager position.

Struggling School Districts Seek Creative Ways to Stay Solvent:

Northern Ozaukee school district is looking at sharing services with Random Lake School District.  Both are small districts with declining enrollments and rising costs. Random Lake already shares a food services administrator and an occupational therapist with nearby districts.  Possible shared services being considered include cooperative purchases, shared facilities, combined sports teams, shared administrators, expanded programs for special education students, or joint before- and after-school programs.http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=435893

Butternut School Board considers consolidation with other school districts or possible dissolution. http://www.parkfallswi.com/placed/index.php?story_id=218131

Menomonee Falls School District faces $1.2 million dollar deficit due to revenue limits and increased utility costs. http://www.jsonline.com/story/?id=413769

APRIL 2006

Taxpayer Protection Act Dies in Assembly and Senate

 During the first week of May both the Assembly and the Senate voted on two versions of the Taxpayer Protection Act (TPA).   The Assembly did approve a watered down version of the TPA that controlled only state, not local spending.  However, late Thursday evening the Senate voted against this measure.  While these versions of government spending limits failed, it is likely that another version will be introduced in the next legislative session this fall.  

 Assembly:

On a vote of 32 - 66 the Assembly rejected a version of the TPA (AJR77) that would control state and local spending.  State Representative Curt Gielow voted against this version.

 On a vote of 50-48 the Assembly passed a version of the TPA (AJR 77 Substitute amendment 5) that would control State (not local) spending to 90% of the average growth of Personal Income over the previous three years.  Representative Curt Gielow voted for this version.

 The Senate voted 20-12 against the TPA version that controlled State spending and tied it to inflation and population growth.  They also voted against the assembly version that had passed there.

 The Senate voted 21-11 against the TPA that controlled State & Local Spending.

 Senator Alberta Darling voted in favor of both versions.

 Below are the 7 Republicans that voted against the State limit:

Ron Brown of Eau Claire, Robert Cowles of Green Bay, Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls, Scott Fitzgerald of Juneau, Dan Kapanke of La Crosse, Luther Olsen of Berlin, and Carol Roessler of Oshkosh.

MARCH 2006

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THREATENS TO
FURTHER REDUCE PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING

Both the Senate and the Assembly have introduced identical resolutions that would amend the Wisconsin State constitution and put further revenue limits (on top of the current revenue caps) on public school funding.  Annual revenue increases for school districts would be capped by a three year rolling average of the Consumer Price Index, an amount that would fall below the current revenue caps.

Known as the Taxpayer Protection Amendment, the intent of this legislation is to put tighter limits on tax increases at the state, county and municipality levels.  At first glance, the proposal is very appealing, given that we live on one of the highest taxed states in the country.  However, a closer analysis shows that the impact of reduced revenues would dramatically impact services across the board. 

The Taxpayer Protection Amendment is very similar to Proposition 13 in California and TABOR (Tax Payer Bill of Rights) in Colorado.  Both of these pieces of legislation systematically dismantled the public system in these states. Colorado finally realized the negative impact on education and enacted Amendment 23  to correct the inequities in education funding.

For more information see http://www.pbs.org/merrow/tv/ftw for the “From First to Worst” documentary.

The ASMTS strongly opposes the amendment in its current form for two reasons:   

1.   The further reduction of revenue will have a significant negative impact upon public schools that are already struggling under built in structural deficits. 

2.       Proposing this legislation as a constitutional amendment rather than a bill is an abdication of legislative responsibility and further takes away what little local control districts have.  A constitutional amendment is extremely difficult to change at any point down the road. Experience tells us over and over again that as times change, so do needs.  There needs to be a mechanism for change to occur when legislation no longer meets the needs of the state. 

Here is TPA Info for more information and analysis of this proposed amendment.  Please contact your legislators to voice your concern and ask them to either exempt public schools from the TPA, or to fix the school funding formula before TPA is put to vote within the legislature.

DECEMBER 2005

Mequon-Thiensville School Board Votes Unanimously For February, 2006 Referendum –

At the November 14^th school board meeting the board approved a resolution to schedule a referendum to exceed the revenue limit over the next 3 years.  Details of the resolutions and the specifics of the impact and scope of the referendum are available on the district website at:  

http://www.mtsd.k12.wi.us/MTSD/District/board-information/referendum/default.html

 For those who relate best to a business model, the following analogy may be a helpful illustration: 

Businesses facing financial difficulties through declining revenue use some of the following approaches.  The specific district approaches are in italics:   

• Reduced expenditures.   Over the past 5 years over $3 million has been cut from the budget in areas such as teaching staff, administrators, specialists, programs, and services.  Many of these reductions have meant decreased services and quality of education for our students.
• Deferred maintenance. The district has cut back the maintenance budget to the point that only 1% of the budget is allocated for maintenance.  Very few, if any, households have such a low allocation.
• Downsized workforce.  The M-T district has systematically reduced staff in response to declining enrollments as well as cut specialist positions such as guidance, gifted and talented, library staff and more.  The current student/administration cost is $106 per pupil compared to $184 per pupil in SE Wisconsin and $198 per pupil for the state.
• Asked workforce for concessions.   The school board this November ratified a two year settlement with the teachers’ union that reduced health benefit expenses through a shift to a PPO (managed care) health insurance plan, plus agreed to pay roughly 5% of percent of premiums in 2006-07.
• Bring in expert consultants to maximize efficiencies. The district has consultants in the areas of budget, energy and finance assisting in ways to further reduce costs and expenditures.

• Reduce/ eliminate research and development.  The district has systematically reduced professional training as well as relied on outside funding sources such as the MT Education Foundation.  In the past, curriculum has been updated on a six year cycle in order to stay current and abreast with changing information and teaching techniques.  This cycle is being delayed in response to budget constraints.
• Increased revenue sources.  Increases in user fees, increased reliance on PTA’s to provide ‘bricks and mortar’ supplies and services, private fundraising for things such as playground equipment, more focus on individual donors have all served to absorb some of expenses that the district was forced to cut.
• Close a plant. Range Line Elementary School was closed at the end of the 2004-05 school year and 300+ students were absorbed into the remaining 3 elementary schools while 17 positions where eliminated from the budget.

All of these reductions come with an intangible price; the quality of the product that is being delivered, the quality of our children’s education.  These reductions are chiseling away at the foundation that has made the Mequon Thiensville school district a blue ribbon district. 

For those who can better relate to a community/social responsibility model, consider the following perspective: 

• Education is a valued commodity in most peoples’ eyes.  This in turn attracts people to communities with a reputation for strong schools and quality education.
• Communities as a whole benefit from a top notch public school system.  Families are attracted to the community, businesses benefit from population growth, communities thrive from being comprised of members who value education and encourage academic success.
• Because strong schools correlate to strong communities, each member of the community, whether directly involved with the school system or not, reaps the benefits.  Therefore, each community member has a social obligation to support efforts to maintain academic excellence, to prevent the system from being dismantled and pushed towards a state of mediocrity.

No one wants to pay more in taxes. However it may help to consider this an investment in the community, in the children of the community who will grow up to make their own mark on our world, and more personally, in protecting the atmosphere, the quality of life and the value of living in Mequon-Thiensville.

Teachers and School Board Ratify Two Year Contract for 2005 - 2007

At the November 14^th school board meeting a two year contract between the Mequon Thiensville Education Association and the district was unanimously approved.  For more information, please click on the link below.

 http://www.mtsd.k12.wi.us/MTSD/District/board-information/teacher-contract-settlement.pdf  

 This settlement marks a significant step towards cost control and cost sharing for the health insurance package, as well as total compensation increase of 3.1% in 2006-07.  This marks the first time a settlement has been reached in our district for less than the QEO.

NOVEMBER 2005

WISCONSIN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS, INC.

 November 7, 2005

REPORT TO THE MEMBERSHIP ON 2006 RECOMMENDED RESOLUTIONS

The Policy and Resolutions Committee recommends the WASB delegates use this opportunity at the Delegate Assembly to make a unified statement to the governor and state legislature calling for school finance reform. If approved, this resolution will be shared with the governor and members of the legislature, but will not be included in the WASB Policies book.

 The committee approved the following statement to delegates:

 “The current school funding formula is unsustainable. The costs to implement state and federal mandates and requirements exceed revenues, creating a structural deficit for schools. While school boards have reduced programs and implemented cost-saving measures, recent efforts to reduce revenue limit increases would have significantly eroded the quality of instruction in Wisconsin’s schools.

 To improve student achievement, grow our economy and prepare students to compete globally, we need a more balanced school funding system. This is not a simple question of increased funding, but rather a fundamental examination of school funding.”

For complete text, click on http://www.wasb.org/legislative/2006_final_resolutions.pdf

December 30, 2005 Editorial – Wisconsin State Journal

Fix school financing

State leaders have sat on their hands long enough while Wisconsin schools have slowly suffered because of a seriously-flawed school financing system. Our leaders show no sign of even chipping away at the problem this year. But a revolt is brewing across the state as schools strain under the state's out-of-date and twisted funding formula.

Thankfully, our public schools still provide quality education. Wisconsin consistently ranks near the top for test scores and other measures.

But rising costs, declining enrollment and unequal tax burdens are forcing many school districts to slip. The rural Florence School District in northern Wisconsin nearly closed.

At the heart of the problem is a formula that essentially requires schools to spend at a faster rate than it allows many of them to collect in revenue. About the only way around the formula is to ask voters for more money in referendums, which are difficult to pass and hinder efficiencies while creating financial instability. Districts also have dramatically different transportation and special education needs, which a new system must better account for.

Reasonable cost controls are fine, especially in payroll and benefits that consume most of the typical district's budget. Yet health costs make controlling spending difficult. If the teachers' unions continue to stubbornly resist cost-effective changes to their elaborate health benefits, wages will be flat.

State leaders, meanwhile, tout gimmicky tax caps instead of searching for real solutions. The state should explore reducing schools' reliance on property taxes. Yet any tax-shift scheme shouldn't jack up the overall tax burden.

If our state leaders don't fix the system soon, the courts probably will. And that would undoubtedly be awkward and messy.

OCTOBER 2005

POSSIBLE REFERENDUM TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE OCTOBER 17^th SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
7:30 p.m. Homestead High School Lecture Hall

The Mequon Thiensville School Board will be discussing a possible referendum for either February, 2006 or early in 2007.  Currently board members and administration are divided on the timing of a referendum, that would focus on covering the anticipated structural deficit over the next 3 – 5 years. 

Current projections for the 2006-07 school year budget include a structural deficit of a minimum of $800,000.   The budget for the 2005-06 school year has become increasingly tight with the anticipated increases in fuel for gas and heating.  The district recently imposed a spending freeze on all non-essential purchases.

A referendum would give the district the authority to exceed the revenue limit by a specified amount for a specified number of years.  The school board will be discussing these specifics at the October 17^th meeting.  In addition, the district administrators will be presenting an example of the types of reductions that would be necessary in order to balance next years’ budget if there is not a successful referendum.  It is anticipated that there would need to be significant reductions in staff positions, as well as cuts to curriculum, maintenance and a variety of programs. 

Regardless of whether or not you might be in favor of a referendum, you are strongly encouraged to attend the October 17^th meeting to learn the specifics, hear what is at stake, ask questions or voice your comments. 

SEPTEMBER 2005

Mequon-Thiensville School District
City of Mequon and Village of Thiensville
5000 W. Mequon Road
Mequon, WI  53092
Phone (262) 238-5804 – Fax (262) 238-8520

                                                                             Robert J. Slotterback, Ph.D. Superintendent

Demond Means, Ed.D, Assistant Superintendent
                Gail Grieger, Business Manager
                Dennis Joyce., Director of Pupil Services

September 14, 2005

To:              Mequon-Thiensville School District Staff
From:             Robert Slotterback
Subject:       Funding and Expenditure Issues

On Monday, September 12, at 4:00 p.m. I informed our Business Office that, until further notice, we will stop approving purchases- except for "essential" items and services. The reason we have to do this is to reduce expenditures during the 2005-2006 budget year. (This budget year ends on June 30, 2006.)

This somewhat unprecedented action is warranted because our projections are telling us that the district has the distinct possibility of having to spend more dollars during this school year than our revenue limit increase will support. (The revenue increase this year should be approximately 2%.) And, because of recent district-wide reductions, we have far fewer options available and less ability to adjust. Let me explain how this is happening.

First, we are facing some significant increases that were not budgeted for last April as we put together our projections for this year. Our district uses approximately 91,000 gallons of gasoline each year. With the price of gasoline where it is now, we could be facing expenditures of more than $100,000 above our budget. Last school year we budgeted approximately $800,000 for fuel to heat our buildings. Since we put our budget together we have been warned that heating costs could rise as much as 40% (approximately $300,000 for our district). And since the beginning of the school year we have had to add at least one teacher to address legal obligations.

Second, last year (the 2004-2005 budget) we exceeded our budget by .97%. It may sound like missing a district budget by less than 1 % is "acceptable." However, 1 % represents approximately $500,000. We cannot continue to exceed our revenue limits. Consequently, we must reduce our expenditures.

The "non-essential" items we will stop approving this year are not yet fully defined. On Wednesday we will start the process of determining what must be purchased this year and what can be "put off." "Essential" items will include things such as contractual obligations, salaries, certain purchases, legal requirements, etc. "Non-essential" items will probably include things such as travel, substitutes for days that are not required, curriculum work, certain purchases, etc. 

All segments of our district will be engaged in determining the difference between "essential" and "non-essential" purchases. Together we must help reduce our expenditures if we are to arrive at a balanced budget. This is crucial because we are anticipating yet another state-imposed structural deficit heading into the 2006-2007 school year. If we over-spend this year, it will simply make next year worse.

It is most difficult to have to inform you, our fine staff, that budgets must be constricted even further. It is even more difficult to do this during our school year. We all know how many departments have already reduced costs. We know classes are larger than last year. However, we have no choice. Talk with your administrator if you have questions, or call or write me. Thank you.

AUGUST 2005

State Budget Status

In July the State Senate and Assembly approved a budget that significantly changed the current law that covers per pupil allocations.  Current law provided for an allocation of $248/student in 2005-2006 and $252 in 2006-2007.  The budget approved in July reduced this allocation to $120/student in 2005-2006 and $100/student in 2006-2007.  This would have translated to an additional deficit of $500,000 for the Mequon-Thiensville school district, for this fiscal year.  This $500,000 would come on top of the deficit that led to closing Range Line School. With these lower allocations the deficit in 2006-2007 would be a projected $1.5 million.   Thankfully, Governor Doyle has vetoed these changes and restored allowable revenue allocations to the current law.  Now the Senate and Assembly have the option of voting to override the veto, however indications are that this is not likely to succeed.  We will continue to provide updates on this process through this website. 

We would like to thank all of our website visitors who contacted their legislators and voiced their concerns to friends and neighbors.  Getting the word out is the first, and most critical, step to helping to reform the school funding system in Wisconsin.  However, now is not yet the time to rest.  Even with the current law restored our district is facing a projected deficit of $950,000 for the 2006-2007 school year assuming the QEO is imposed.   Please continue to contact your legislators and Governor Doyle and encourage them to begin meaningful discussions on reforming the incompatible and outdated legislation that is causing the structural deficit year after year.

Collectively we can be a voice that will be heard, a voice that will advocate for our children and our community.