Asking for more money during a recession, when a lot of people are unemployed and having to strech to make it already is a bad idea. We will be voting no.

In response to Linda as to why voting "Yes" is a good idea even in these economical hard times.
· The district has already been frugal. It spends $2,000 less per pupil than the state average and has reduced expenditures over the last four years by $1.44 million in order to achieve a balanced budget·

The district will only receive 90% of its revenue this year from the state because of the shift to balance the state budget. While the operating levy would increase total property tax requests from the district would be slightly under 2011 and almost $1.5 million less than in 2010·

The $500,000 in federal revenue was required to be used for salaries and benefits. The district funded existing positions and did not add any positions but was able to maintain existing positions for three years.·

We are replacing computers that are 8 and 9 years old. Not all operate new software effectively.·
The district provides only those special education services that are mandated by the state and federal government.

Hope this helps you remember to vote yes on November 8th.

Well stated, Bob. The shortsightedness of some of the voters is alarming. Also, I am glad that you clarified a point that I think many miss, and that is how closely a community is tied to its schools. Especially a community like ours. We have done so much to support our schools so far, and it's something that I take a lot of pride in. Let's not turn our backs on our schools now.

My husband and I will be voting NO NO NO. During these hard economic times, school asking for money, when people are out of work and can't find a job. Struggling just to make ends meet day to day. Not getting a raise year after year and groceries, utilities and every time you turn around the cost of something else goes up. While all of your invested money for retirement is shrinking and shrinking. Maybe, its time to check your portfolio, then maybe you will stop saying Yes. And to mention also now the HOMESTEAD exemption elimination just taken away too. And what about the 2.48% increase the City of St Michael is proposing. Stop and THINK, people who will vote YES, are your pockets that deep? Ya, you go a head and vote yes, and before you know it you will be among the ones whose homes will fall into foreclosure too. Then what school will your children be going to...................VOTE NO ON NOV. 8TH

agreed....vote NO NO NO!!!! Give me a break whining about kids playing sports. Pay to play. If you can't afford extra curricular sports, then tough. Don't play. I pay $2500 a year for my kids to play association hockey...I've worked Twins games to help pay for the ice time because I don't make enough with my regular salary. It's extra...
I voted yes for the levy 5 years ago because we needed to build schools because of our growth etc. There's NO WAY I'm voting for an operating levy. Not when our schools are built with marble floors in the highschool, flat screen tv's througout the rooms, etc etc etc. The schools can do what all of us have to do every day in our lives. Spend within their means!! What a novel concept. Honestly give the whole "community" and "it's for the children" crap a rest. Our schools will still be great, our kids will still get a great education, and our community will still be solid if this stupid levy doesn't pass. There is not a money problem in our schools....it's a SPENDING PROBLEM! We spend more money per pupil than we EVER HAVE. They should think about this stuff when they are building the Taj Mahal's of schools with our first levy money. I have three kids in our school system..soon to be 4...so I have as much of a vested interest in these schools as anyone. They will be just fine......

Yes, we are all experiencing hard times, but do we wait until we see the results of shorter funding and then start complaining about class size, falling behind in technology, older textbooks. We need to stay ahead ofthe game. The schools have made cuts and already work with one of the lowest funding per student rates in the state. This levy will offset some of the cuts that education will be facing in the coming years. I find it fascinating that some folks rage on about the need to fund extra sheets of ice that benefit a few (to the tune of 1 million plus), whereas this is an investment in our future that maintains and improves upon education for all students. While you can argue that the schools need to work with what they receive as a budget, there will be cuts...and watch the whining when sports are cut...it will be loud and incessant!

Sounds like an uphill battle for the Vote Yes people. Reading the comments below the story, there are quite a few mentions of "sports" but not articulated enough to show the collective anger over the old "bait and switch" sports deal from back a few years ago. STMA test scores are very good with the level of funding they have now, so why do they need more - to reduce class size from 27 to 24? Not a great improvement. Plus, what new ways will the administrators find to divert funding away from education that benefits the majority to expensive sports programs that benefits the few. I normally support education referendums (even though I have no children) because of the obvious benefit to our communities and the greater good for our society, but I am suspicious about this one to the point I am finding myself leaning towards voting NO for the first time in my life.

I do see both sides of this. However how much could be saved by closing open enrollment in our district I wonder? The taxes we pay are horrendous compared to the value of our homes right now. Asking for more money right now just doesn't go over well with many people in the community when we see how well the schools are doing currently.

Hard to argue that the school district doesn't spend the money pretty well given the test scores. I got to see a presentation by the superintendant, and the one thing that bothered me was the constant switching of the comparisons. It made me feel like he was manipulating things.
Although I lean towards voting yes, I have a few questions maybe Beth or Bob or someone could answer. Are we switching the teachers generous benefits package to one more closely resembling private packages? For example, are we switching them over to a defined contribution pension plan, (think 401K) with the school district matching a certain percentage of their income, or are we still funding an archaic defined benefit plan for them? We need to remember that we are their employers, and while I have no problem with teachers making a good salary, I am offended when they ask me to fund them with a better retirement than I am likely to receive, at little or no cost to them.

How much of their medical benefits are we asking them to pay, and are we getting competetive bids for those plans? I know I pay over $500 a month for my benefits, and again, it bothers me that when I hear of teachers paying $50/month for theirs, and sticking us with the remainder of the bill.

I honestly do not know the answers to these questions, but straight answers will definitely help everyone make an informed decision.

I am voting yes for two reasons
1. The STMA school district even with the levy referendum will be one of the lowest expenditures per student in the state. Over the 30 years I have been in the district, the STMA Board has been a steward of the taxpayer's money. STMA is handicapped in that it has no industry to speak of, thus education taxation winds up primarily on the home owners.
2. The local housing market and home valuation is related to the strength of the school district. Even though housing market stinks right now, it would be worse with a poorly funded school district. One only has to look at the White Bear school district in the 80's. People could not sell their homes in an up market, because levies were voted down for many years and the district buildings and funding suffered. Nobody wanted to move to that district.
VOTE YES ON NOV. 8TH

Just to correct an earlier comment - we're in the EIGHTH year of this Operations Levy. The BONDING referendum was six years ago (remember - bonds are for buildings, levies are for learning).

And another fact that may have been missed - Operations levies MUST BE RENEWED every 10 years, or they go away, which would totally defund that levy. I think less than 5 percent of MN schools operate without one. I'd have to double check that statistic.

These levy's are a joke. "It's for the children." Please. Spare me. Who's "against" educating kids? No one. Nobody. What people are against is the politics that screw up our lives on a daily basis. We are extorted into sending our tax money to DC only to have it redistributed, only to watch our world ranking in education plummet. Abolish the Dept of Education and return control of our schools to the states. I saw comments about having to use outdated textbooks and computers. Textbooks do not need to be purchased every year. Most of the subject matter does not change, of course unless we're in the "rewriting history" mode. Computers, same thing. School comps don't need terrabyte of memory and screaming demon processors. And 1/2 a million to keep class sizes low? 1/2 a million gets you about 8 teachers over 13 grades. zero impact. And why is this levy being pushed in a non-election year? Because most people won't go and vote, that's why? What happens if it fails? Do we see a levy push next year? And do we see this every 8 years? I thought this was a ten year levy. This thing is pure bunk. And sad to say, I was planning on going to the meeting last Tuesday, except I've been in those before. What I would have said probably would have started a riot. And for the record, yes I have school aged children, and yes I want the best for them. But where does it end? Maybe pension reform and some other issues should be looked at, except that would warrant a strike, and we can't have that.

Instead of a tax can we make it a fee.that way everyone has to pay the same....it's J Just going to cost on average $10 never dose.it's always more.I wonder if this would pass if ever parent that had a kid in school would only be the ones paying for this.now that would be the most fair way of doing this.thy might not be able to buy them there new I-phone but what's more important.....

Before another levy is passed I would like for someone to tell me how the district is trying to save money? I live behind Middle School West, every night of the year the lights are on both inside and outside the building. What a waste of taxpayers money!! Start showing some signs to the taxpayers that the school district is doing everything they can to save money instead of asking for more.

I have 2 kids in the school system and have lived here for 17 years. I choose to drive a long way to work to live in this community because of this school system. I am voting NO. I know that people are hurting in our community and are loosing their homes and jobs. I have a few neighbors that are letting their houses go due to the economy and will have to move now. We have businesses that hurting and some that have closed. Times are tough and are not going to be getting better for a whole lot of people anytime soon. My family has been lucky. We have not lost jobs and have been in our home long enough that we do not owe more on it than it is worth. We need to look at this as a community and not just how we are doing. The city is already adding this tax and that tax. All we hear is it is only a few dollars a month. All these little costs add up. The community is not growing and may actually start shrinking if this economy stays the same. I think the scare tactics of larger classes and so on are not the way to get this through. You cry wolf too many times and no one is going to believe you anymore. We as a community have supported this school and still will continue too but when you come asking for more money on top of the 500 dollars in this economy I feel was a bad move and actually may hurt future levies that may even be needed more that this one now. What was wrong with 500 dollars per student that I fully supported.

John

I haven't decided whether I will vote yes or no. It appears by the debate on this forum that people have already made up their mind. There are a ton of issues in our community that are really unique. The number one being that the housing market died. The growth that was projected when we built the high school did not and will not happen. The value of the homes that were built have went down in value by larger percentages than other communities. Thus lower property tax revenue than other communties. What would the same house cost in Maple Grove, Plymouth, Wayzata, Edina or Champlin? The answer is different in each of these communities, but the range is 30% more in Maple Grove to 75% more in Edina. Our foreclosure rates are one of the highest in MN. I think our school board and superintendant must have done a great job with these unique challenges. I can understand the debate on both sides. The frustration is understandable. Six years ago we wouldn't have been talking about teachers benefits, because their pay was lower than other college level professionals. Now in this economy we're all jealous.

William - a point of fact - the kindergarten through third grade classes each have more than 400 students. The high school WILL be full in less than eight years. Enrollment projections show that.

Let me start by saying that I am still undecided. Here is a direct quote from the superintendent from the blanket email that went out tonight.

"STMA is at a disadvantage because it must spend almost $2,000 per pupil less than the state average. It faces an even greater challenge when making future budget reductions because any reductions start with revenue that is among the lowest in the state."

If I am to believe this, our superintendent is actually telling us our students are disadvantaged. Just because you spend less and achieve excellence in education (as shown in our state exams), does not make you disadvantaged. It makes you a good steward of your funds.

Another tactic that keeps circulating is the graphic of a bunch of school districts around us that shows how much less STMA spends per pupil. This is about as ridiculous as my kid coming to me and saying that everyone in the neighborhood has $80 jeans so she has to have them too or she won't be successful. I

As someone who is still undecided, the arguments for the levy would be better served by showing tangible and well thought through arguments. Just asking me to pay more won't convince me. This only says that the school district thinks they have to keep up with the Jones' in order to be considered a success.

Here's an interesting article to substantiate my point for abolishing the Dept of Education and returning control to the states. An outtake of the article:
"We have 4,200 employees in the federal Department of Education making an average of $103,000 a year. This money would be better spent in local classrooms," the GOP presidential hopeful said Thursday at an education forum in New York City.
And the link....
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/michele-bachmann-blasts-bureaucrats-us-department-education
The issue is much bigger than just this levy.

As I'm reading the above comments with exception of a few they all seem to me to be an emotionally charged disorganized rambling on about the issues surrounding this levy. Some of the statements made in the above comments are not accurate. Before you place your vote be sure that you are well-informed.

One thing that many do not seem to know if how often textbooks are being replaced currently, and I've seen many people referencing "new textbooks every year." From what I've learned in my time covering the district, I believe each subject is on a six year curriculum review cycle. So each subject will get a review at some point during a six year period. Since the school district I covered previously also did this, I'm wondering if their reviews might be by statue, though I'm not sure. This doesn't necessarily mean that they will get new textbooks, from what I've learned, but it's a possibility.

*statute, sorry :)

Seijuro and Jeremy - the District approves its budget each year. Copies are available through the school district offices. Payables are approved at EACH board meeting so you CAN get a line item update just by attending the meeting and getting a packet, which is also public record.

Historically, the backbone of this country has been agriculture and labor. A very strong manufacturing sector in the 1900’s is what made this country great. But the rules have changed. With the advent of the free trade agreements over the last 10-15 years, we can no longer compete. Companies have and will continue to move more jobs abroad due to labor costs.

So as a country we need to determine where we can compete and I believe that innovation is the answer. In order to be the world leader in innovation, education has to be the focal point.

What we do now to have the strongest possible education system will determine if our standard of living will increase or decline over the next 20-30 years. I am a firm believer in reducing waste and keeping taxes in check as much as possible. Determining how to spend our pubic dollars wisely instead of taking a hard line cut, cut, cut approach is what is needed. I think spending reductions are needed in certain areas, but I believe paying for a strong educational system now will help to reverse the downward spiral we now seem to be in.

We all need to consider how this levy will affect us personally, but we should also consider the affect on a larger scale. I will no longer have children in the district when this levy takes effect, but I will be voting YES on November 8th.

Gang,
You're all making excellent points on both sides of the issue. Remember to please keep conversation above the board and avoid any personal attacks. Each voter has a right to his or her opinion. We posted these to just illustrate some of the points from each side.
There's nothing stronger than an informed electorate, as someone smarter than I once said.

One of the items from above that I would like to address is that of teacher benefits and pensions. I am not a teacher in the district, but in another district that will remain nameless. I can tell you that I pay over $800.00 a month for my family health insurance (high deductible) and pension plan. These are FACTS!

Do you value the district providing transporation to and from school? Transporation could be cut. If you have an elementary student and live less than 1 mile from school they will be either riding their bike, walking, or you will be taking them. It is 2 miles for secondary students.

You can't predict and ignore the future. Education is the first step. We must invest in our future. If we don't, we will no longer we be a world leader.  It is the American way to always improve. Don't forget who we are and where we come from. There is always a bigger cause than ourselves. The future is ours.  

Something what the future could look like:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1791645/qa-with-microsofts-envisioning-lab-on-the-future-of-productivity?partner=rss

Vote NO!

Hold the district responsible to balancing a budget. If they could afford to spend $100 million+ on new schools, they better have budgeted to operate them.

If they can afford to put $4,000 smart boards in every room, they better have budgeted a way to sustain them.

And instead of complaining about not getting their fair share of per pupil budget, they should have budgeted for what they were receiving.

I'm tired of saying YES to a school board that can't manage their money.

VOTE NO!

The school board and superintendent can balance a budget. If there is no money there will cuts. The next round of cuts will be felt. Please inform yourself about what will be cut and what you value.

If there needs to be cuts, then there needs to be cuts. Lets start with a middle school sports program that is already understaffed and say no sports if there is an association option available.
My kids played middle school baseball and the coaches were good coaches but there was only 2 of them for over 30 kids which did not allow for much 1 on 1 training. Not to mention that they would take a bus, sometimes up to an hour away for a 3 inning game and 1 at bat. What are they learning there? This program cut into a much better sports program at the STMA association level where each and every one of these kids, for about the same cost, could have learned from a coaching ratio of 4 coaches to 12 kids, not 1 for 17, and played 3 times as many full inning games.

I know the consequences of cuts - make them and let's move on.

SAY NO!

The school board balances the budget each year. They look at the income coming in from all sources as well as the expenditures going out. They look at all the costs, and see how they balance out the pie, all which is available to the public I believe. With declining revenue come cutbacks, and it’s the board’s responsibility to decide things that are cut or funded each year. IMO they do an excellent job of this each year, it’s of minimal impact and few notice.

If and when the cuts become greater and dig deeper than what the public is used to, the board has an obligation to keep the public informed as to what cuts they are considering and why, and let the people decide with a vote. Voters can decide if they support the cuts, or support additional funding. I agree that if this doesn’t pass, life will not end and our schools will go on and our kids will be fine. However, as they should, the board is explaining the facts that these cuts will be felt by many more such as increased walking boundaries or activities or whatever. They are letting voters choose the option to support the cuts or to support additional funding.
My vote is to support the funding.

Well said Bob Barker! Voters please read the facts out there. Public schools= public records that are accessible to all. Any questions call the district office and get the information first hand.

Rick, you've made your points clear. Please keep comments on topic, and allow others to express their opinion as well as you have expressed yours.

I will vote YES!

I will never vote YES for any referendum until K-12 education is reformed. That means getting rid of federal/state mandates and purse string controls. Education is a local issue. Tenure needs to be done away with - I had two children attend STMA and had some terrific teachers but too many teachers who couldn't care less - they were just there to fill the chair until they could retire. All district employees need to be converted to a defined contribution pension program and they also need to ask more from employees for their health care. Taxpayers are getting shafted by Education MInnesota and by School Administration. Abolish accumulated sick time/vacation time. Way too much focus on sports - ever wonder why school learning grinds to a halt when the latest sports team is in some regional/state tournament? Just think about the resources wasted for this. Sports have an important purpose for kids - but academics need to come first.

STMA is not nearly as competent in providing a strong academic foundation for kids as they think they do. They especially fail high achieving students.
The Committee members "chosen" for reviewing and recommending this levy increase were not a true cross section of St Michael Albertville. Almost everyone chosen for this advisory board would always vote for a levy increase because for most of them it is self-serving to do so.
K-12 Education needs serious reform - it has gotten away with using children as it's shield for ever increasing costs. The real benefactors haven't been children (note that test scores have actually decreased over the years) - but the special interests within education.

Oh and by the way two other things. The District can post UNBIASED information on websites very cheaply - everyone has access to a computer - either at home or the library. The District continues to waste money with repeated propaganda mailed to households.

I could find hundreds of areas that the District could save money on - but administration is too comfy in their arrogance.

Lastly, note Pat Garafalo (legislator from Farmington) in her desire to restrict schools to even year levy referendums. Schools are being disingenious with their taxpayers by having odd-year elections. School admin knows that fewer voters will vote on a one item election - and therefore they take advantage of the opportunity on odd years. Talk about a subtle form of disenfranchising voters!

Al - you bring a up a good point. I've found it "interesting" (editorializing a bit here) that districts moved SCHOOL BOARD elections to coincide with general elections in many cases (though some suburbs - like St. Louis Park - do have school board elections this year) but levies can happen at any time. It does cost the district money to bring in voting machines, have monitors, etc. ANY time you have a separate vote.

Mike - thanks for validating that. Another waste of taxpayer money.

Two other points to consider -- the contract for teachers was finalized at the end of June of this year. What overview and details can be provided of the costs to the district? Also, if enrollment is flat to last year ..why is the general fund need up 3%?

Al - you've answered a bit of your own question. Because enrollment isn't up much, the per pupil payment formula has actually DECREASED because of the way the state decided to dish out funds in this year's legislative session. Plus, the percentage the state withholds is going up.
It's easy to criticize the Fed's failure in funding education (see the Special Education mandate, which was supposed to be 100 percent federal and is in reality about 40 percent) but ANY superintendent or school board member with any political background will tell you the state's education funding system needs to be fixed. That's why we have 125 levy votes this year statewide - the most ever.

Mike

I would add that k-12 education should only be a local concern -- NOT a federal or state concern. Too many mandates/purse strings to follow. And of course, the admin and the Operating Levy Committee members like to tout that a sizeable portion of the approved referendum would come from the state. Like the 'State' is some "sugar daddy" with unlimited resources that has no cost to the taxpayer. This is the game that the school industry has plied - and that disingenuity has got to be called out for what it is.

Your comment doesn't answer why the district needs to increase the general fund by 3% though

Al Heitkamp - the school admin (as many districts do) purposely chose 2011 (versus 2010 or 2012 to have their referendums because historically fewer people vote on a single item concern. This is a fact! I said it was a subtle form of disenfranchisement -- which it is - and also a waste of taxpayer resources...which it also is.

Al Heitkamp - Im glad your daughter felt that way about AP classes at STMA - my kids both left STMA in their 11th grade to go the PSEO route.

Why? Some tenured teachers who didn't care enough anymore. Also, AP classes weren't challenging enough for them - they both felt they were wasting their time at STMA. The school district is not underfunded! Dig deeper Al.

Again, let's avoid attacking each other's points and stick to the issue, or comments will be removed

I hope that if this levy fails we do not hear all of you "Vote No" people complaining that class sizes are to big, upset that your son/daughter is no longer able to ride the bus, or that you are upset that either you now have to pay more to have your kids in sports or that their sports have been abolished. How easy can it be for a school district to budget when the state "delays" millions of dollars in payments in order to cover their own mess? I believe the school district has been very good stewarts of our money and is doing more with less and will continue to achieve more that other districts that get more per student than us. The sad part is that all these people that want the minute details of how the money is spent more than likely won't take the time to go to the District office to get the information.
VOTE YES NOV. 8th!

The really sad part is that the school district - in good faith to the taxpayers who provide the funding through property taxes on a local level and income/sales taxes on a state level - aren't uniformly provided a better breakout of expenditures through the school website. If it's good enough to provide a rationale on the website for increased funding - it's also good enough to provide a fuller breakout of expenditures. The School admin would rather not easily disclose some of the spending practices -- and most people do not have the time to go to the school during the limited office hours.

I believe in full disclosure -- good and bad - otherwise it would appear you are hiding things that don't help your argument.

I agree that it is time for all of us to tighten the belts when it comes to new taxes. However, I don't believe that the school district has mismanaged or over spent my money. It seems to me that they have made the necessary cuts where needed in order to successfully operate within the budget given to them even though they are in the red. The only thing the school can do is ask for more money at this point given the difference in state funding year to year and with at least 1/3 of all MN school districts having operating levy referendums up for vote on Tuesday I would say that if this pisses you off then you need to write your state gov’t because it’s pretty evident that the state decided to place a large percentage of the education burden squarely on the local communities during budget renewal. With regard to building four new facilities, we voted bonding referendums that allowed for the schools to be built and if you voted to allow them to be built certainly you should have known that an increase in the budgets operationally would have been needed from time to time. I will vote yes as I believe that we must continue to invest in our community through education and supporting out K-12 schools, but with this vote for yes I would also ask that the school district start looking at newer technologies to help reduce over all capital expenditures for both the operation and transportation pieces as I am less likely to vote yes again with out such changes taking place.

By saying Yes to this referendum - you are in essence saying that you think K-12 education doesn't need reform. Continue to go along with that status quo and not demand that tenure and pension reform happen sooner. In other words - you think that the school district can spend the additional taxes they want more wisely than you can. If you don't start saying NO -- there will be no incentive to change.

Al H -- you seem to want to nitpick my comments.

I said that having referendums on odd years is SUBTLE voter disenfranchisement - which it is - it's a fact that many fewer people vote on single ballot concerns. Sure, everyone who is eligible can vote - but if getting more people TO VOTE is the prime concern - don't you think it would be better to have on even years?

The real reason is -- School districts DONT want to have a large vote - it gives them a better opportunity to get their referendums passed.

That is the subtlety of the concern.

Not to mention the additional costs borne by taxpayers for the additional voting day processes. That part isn't mentioned and certainly isn't subtle

I love most of the teachers and the quality of education and extracurricular activities at STMA, and I have voted yes many times before this year. My yes vote was changed to a NO vote this year. Somehow the district found an extra $40,000 to pay the former superintendent to be a "consultant" to help pass this levy referendum and to help with teacher negotiations. This unnecessary expense is the salary for a full time teacher! Then the current superintendent created a new district position--HR--when enrollments are not growing, and guess who he hired...the former superintendent's daughter. So, the district can be creative with how they spend money; they just aren't creative in the way most of us would like them to be. The district should first make cuts in the district office and lead by example. Spend your money wisely before asking for more money.

At the end of Sept.when I asked Dr. Behle about the district hiring the former superintendent, Dr. Ziegler, the following information was provided: Dr. Ziegler is paid a daily rate for a maximum of 70 days. Max. amount would be $40,000 IF she worked all 70 days. To date it was 10 days. Her job responsibilities DO NOT include consulting. Specifically, she is preparing a 5 year maintenance & repair plan for all facilities in the district which includes prioritizing projects so that annual facility budgets can be set in a uniform manner. She will work with the finance manager to update accounting practices to ensure compliance with laws. She has been asked to testify on behalf of the district at an employment hearing. Furthermore, she will work on establishing a school foundation. She is also working on resolving the final remaining construction issues with the high school building. She is serving on the district’s teacher negotiation team. These are a few examples. This is the information I was provided. Feel free to contact the district to verify. One last point to note- our district administration is pretty lean. STMA’s expenditures on district level administration are 2.3% of the revenue. The state average is 5.4%. The district does not have an Asst. Superintendent. How many companies do you know the size of the district that do not have a Director of Human Resources? The position was added this year but it is not full time.

Steve, you are correct that she is a paid consultant, but incorrect on her position. Dr. Behle has done the majority of the community outreach with the levy.
Sonja also has the numbers right. She is not making full salary and is paid per day

Al H - I disagree with your assessment of the phrase "subtle disenfranchisement" that I use. The word "subtle" is added because the admininstration knows that reducing the vote count helps their cause. That is not overtly done -- but complicitly done (i.e. SUBTLELY). Almost all school districts play this little game - and it's disingenious that STMA does it. It is for reasons like this that my vote is NO

Al, yes it was both at her retirement party and at the board meeting. In the scheme of a multi million dollar budget, it was a non issue in my opinion when it came to factors surrounding the operations levy.

Al H -- yes, we will disagree. An adjective such as "subtle" is used to color the verb "disenfranchisement".

There is no justification for spending additional resources on a separate election for school districts -- the institutions that WHINE constantly about being limited on resources. But picking odd year elections is done for to lmit voter turnout.

One thing I wanted to mention regarding the timing of the levy: though I don't believe the school district is blind to the statistics that more referendums pass in non-election years, the main reason I heard for having the vote this year is allow for another chance to pass the referendum if this year's doesn't pass, because after that the original $500 levy would also drop off. Since the new levy (if passed) would take effect in 2012 taxes the school district would not see those funds until 2013. 2014 is when the existing levy expires, so holding the referendum this year gives a year of cushion. I think it would have been unwise for the district to only allow themselves one chance to pass or renew the referendum before it falls off. Also interesting to note is that their last levy attempt failed in the non-election year of 2003, then passed in a presidential election year of 2004.

Guys. We try to cover as much as we can for the community. Al A. I would direct a lot of your questions of me to the school board or the district's business manager. As far as I know, no committee beyond the board of education is ever paid.

Rick - we do not have a PRINT edition. What you see here is what Patch is.

Dr. Behle, STMA superintendent, was interviewed by Aaron Brom of the Crow River News concerning the levy referendum. Aaron asked about the effect of the $50 per pupil unit increase, and Dr. Behle responded that it was to pay interest on school district loans. Dr. Behle knew that was not the case. All districts receive an increase in the basic formula of that amount whether or not they have a loan, and this is $250,000 to STMA this year. The formula increases another $50 next year and an additional $50 the following year. By the 3rd year, the $150 per pupil increase will net STMA about a million dollars a year! Note that the $150 increase is only $45 per pupil short of the proposed increase of $195! This lie is in print for all to review.

Our STMA district timeline:
Housing Market Collapses
Dr. Ziegler announces forthcoming retirement
Dr. Ziegler has her husband, who has a pilot's license, fly the board to Iowa City to talk to Dr. Jim Behle
In interviews, Dr. Ziegler praises Dr. Behle
Dr. Behle hired
Dr. Behle denies club status to pro-life group
Board hires Dr. Ziegler as a consultant at her daily rate of pay
Dr. Ziegler retires
Pro-life group brings lawsuit
Dr. Behle advised district position in lawsuit is not strong
Pro-life group wins lawsuit in court
Dr. Behle says the district needs an HR person who really knows contracts
Board agrees, does not ask that the superintendent knows them
Position in description is drafted, closely matching the background of Dr. Ziegler's daughter, Jennifer
Dr. Behle hires Dr. Ziegler's daughter to the new HR position (when they are short of money)

Al H

Perhaps it's happened in your working career - but it has never happened in mine - nor have EVER seen a business hire someone for duplicative roles. Consultantancy from the outside -- yes. People being groomed for the top position but working on special projects unrelated to the responsibilities of the chief executive - yes. But never instances where someone else was hired to do duplicative effort work. Ever.

Al A. - I have not commented on Dr. Ziegler and Dr. Behle both being full time. My comment was on retaining Dr. Ziegler after retirement. And that practice DOES happen in business and fairly often. Sometimes it makes sense. I did not weigh in on if it was the right to do it in this situation because I guess I don't feel I have the qualifications to judge. My comments were about bringing someone back part time because of their expertise, that it does happen in business and I have been at companies where it has happened.

You seem to have the misconception that I have specifically praised Dr. Ziegler. I believe the school board, administration and the staff as a whole has done a decent job. My comments have been mostly limited to the quality of education at STMA and whether this levy is needed to maintain the district’s current quality of education.

This discussion seems to be changing to a forum for people to personally attack others. If you have a specific issue with Dr. Ziegler and Dr. Behle please leave me out of it.

iAnd Al H -- I haven't challenged your opinions like you have challenged mine (e.g. what the definition of "subtle" disenfranchisement is, whether I felt that "high achievers were failed" by STMA in the past. You've used my quotes and shoved them back in my face.

My opinion is just as valuable as yours - and they deserve to be treated that way.

Al A. - Your are still missing my point. I have not commented about the period where Dr. Ziegler and Dr. Behle were both on full time. If you have a beef with that - have at it. People were questioning the practice of a person leaving a position (i.e. retiring) and then being brought back part time capacity. How can you say that never happens? And what is wrong with that practice? If there is some other impropriety, fine. But I do not know that there is other than the here say on this site. Saying it smells does not prove anything.

I responded to your comments for two reasons. 1. Your use of the word "disenfranchisement" is incorrect by definition and is inflammatory in my opinion. It wrongly discredited the voting process.

2. Your original post made a blanket statement that "high achievers were failed" by STMA which has not been my experience. I gave examples of why I disagreed with you and gave you the opportunity make your case.

I do respect that you have your opinions, but blanket statements that could affect the outcome of this vote need to be challenged just has you have challenged my opinions. I have tried hard to keep my comments to what have experience with and avoid speculation.

If I have offended you, I apologize. But I do stand by my arguments. This is why I have a love/hate relationship with this type of forum. If we were face to face having this debate, maybe this discussion would not have went south.

In the interest of full disclosure for individuals wanting to know more about the costs that taxpayers bear in support of the school district, I’m going to post a summary of the compensation packages offered to these groups of staff: Principals, Teachers, Support staff (Custodians, Groundskeepers, Food Service, Paras, Office Admin etc). Not specific people mind you – but some of the eye-opening details about the packages employees receive. I will post links to each grouping of staff – so people can see for themselves the details. Noticeably absent from the STMA website (and board meeting minutes??) are details for compensation packages for key administration at STMA. I am going to provide a website where one can look up specific salaries of STMA employees. I used that website to find Ziegler’s, Behle’s and others annual salaries (but certainly not the total compensation package). I am also providing a link to the PDF file of the Centennial Superintendent’s agreement – as I am sure that the STMA’s superintendents agreement would largely be like it, though the specific details might be a little different.

To the supporters of continued and extended long term incremental spending – if you share my concern about ensuring that taxpayer $ are used wisely to provide a tremendous education for each and every child – then K-12 educational contract reform is the key mechanism to ensuring that enough $ are available today, tomorrow and in the future.

Key Admin
Here’s where you can look up public school employees salaries (DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL COMPONENTS OF THE COMPENSATION PACKAGE)
http://extra.twincities.com/car/schlsalaries/default.aspx
Dr. Ziegler’s base pay was 139K in the 2009-2010 year and 145k in the 2010-2011 school year (4.5% increase, yoy). She was most likely eligible for performance bonuses – not unusual for key “executives”.
Dr. Behle’s pay in the 2010-2011 school year was 138K …. With performance bonuses also most likely in place. Couldn’t find what Dr. Behle’s salary was for the current school year – but it’s most likely in the mid 140K range.
Note that Dr Ziegler and Dr Behle were both on the STMA payroll in the 2010-2011 school year . Note also that Dr Ziegler was hired as a “consultant” at almost $600 a day for potentially a few months during the current school year.
The NEW Human Resource position filled by Dr Zieglers’ daughter (Annette) salary is/was? 118k for 2010-2011.

Key Admin Continued
Based on the superintendents contracts that I was able to view on the link:
http://extras.twincities.com/car/schlsalaries/supermap.htm
These are the general additional annual components (beyond the noted salary above) of a superintendents’ compensation package
• 30+ paid vacation days per year – accumulative for one year only
• 15+ paid sick days per year - these can be accumulated – up to approximately 125 total DAYS.
In other words – upon retirement or severance – a superintendent can receive a 5 to 6 digit lump sum payment for unused sick time.
• 5 days paid family /bereavement leave (if used)
• 2 days personal leave
• 11 paid holidays
That’s over 60 days of possible paid time off on an annual basis (not including the possibility of paid time off for jury duty, attending professional conferences and the like).

Key Admin Final
Regarding health care/dental it would appear that superintendents receive full (no deductible) family coverage for both at no cost to them. On top of that – a superintendent likely receives a sizable ($1500? Or more?) contribution to their health savings account. Also, if the superintendent retires before age 65 (when Medicare would kick in) – the school district most likely pays for that full family coverage at no cost to the superintendent until age 65. What’s the true value in that? 20K per year?
There also likely a car allowance ($500?).
Couldn’t determine what if any contribution the district would make towards a superintendents’ retirement. Wish there was full availability on these sorts of things.
For additional insight into the concern of superintendents’ compensation packages – I suggest reading
www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2003/.../compensation_03_report.pdf
It’s 8 years old – but highly relevant to this topic.

These are the general additional annual components (beyond the noted salary above) of a principals’ compensation package
• 15+ paid sick days per year - these can be accumulated – up to 110 total DAYS.
In other words – upon retirement or severance – a superintendent can receive a 5 to 6 digit lump sum payment for unused sick time.
• 3 days paid family /bereavement leave (if used)
• 2 days personal leave
• 10 paid holidays
Does not include paid time off for jury duty, attending professional conferences and the like).
Regarding health care/dental principals receive full (no deductible) single coverage or $1500/month school district contribution for family coverage for both at no cost to them. On top of that – a principal receives a 2.4k contribution to their health savings account. Also, if the principal retires before age 65 (when Medicare would kick in) – the school district would pay $7-$8k per year for medical premiums until age 65.

@Al A.- I really don't understand why you are so angry. I have certainly acknowledged that you are entitled to you opinion and on one point said we should agree to disagree, yet you keep coming back. I even apologized and you keep coming back. My posts have been in areas where I had have personal experience and I have backed my views up with links to articles that supported my view. When you started posting you made blanket statements with little or nothing to back them up so I challenged them. I see that has changed in the last 12 hours.

But people must be getting tired of us bickering here and I know it is becoming a waste of my time. So you win. If we can't have debate with out your feelings being hurt, I'm done.

Teachers PT2
These are the general additional annual components (beyond the noted salary above) of a principals’ compensation package
• 1.25 days accumulated sick days per working month – up to 110 total DAYS.
In other words – upon retirement or severance – a teacher can receive a 5 to 6 digit lump sum payment for unused sick time.
• 3 days paid family /bereavement leave (if used)
• 2 days personal leave
• 10 paid holidays
Does not include paid time off for jury duty, attending professional conferences and the like).
Regarding health care/dental teachers receive a roughly 500(6k annual) dollar school district contribution towards single health care coverage and approximately 1K (12k annual) for family coverage. My understand is that teachers pay less than 10% of the cost of their health insurance premiums, while those in the private sector typically pay 20-25% of the cost if they have insurance.
The School District contributes to each eligible teachers 403b retirement fund:
Years of Service in ISD 885 Maximum Board Matching Contribution Continuing Contract (Tenured) through 9th year $ 500.00 - 10th through 14th year $ 1,000.00 - 15th through 19th year $ 1,500.00 - 20th year + $ 2,000.00 Lifetime Maximum District Contribution: $ 16,500.00 Lifetime Maximum District Contribution starting 2010-2011: $ 17,000.00

Teachers PT3
It is certainly true that the individual teachers contribute most to their retirement – but understand that the TRA's ability (organization managing teachers pension plan) to provide is subject to the performance of their portfolio. Since teachers are on a defined BENEFIT plan (versus a 401k styled defined CONTRIBUTION plan) – it’s more than likely that the TRA will be looking for sizeable contributions in the future. From whom? the state taxpayer of course!

This is how Education Minnesota (the union) sees the issue:
"Teachers are required by the state to participate in TRA. Further, the state of Minnesota has managed the funds. If there is a shortfall due to the actuarial assumptions or the investment strategies of the state of Minnesota it is meet and just that the taxpayers should be asked to meet the commitments made by their elected officials".
In other words – there is nobody to guarantee your 401k – but Education Minnesota expects the TRA to be made whole, no matter what – at your expense!

Teachers PT4
Then there is that thorny issue called “Tenure” – whereby the union will go to mat to protect bad teachers and especially teachers with seniority. Younger teachers – regardless how good they are – are the first to go if layoffs are required. And while I have experienced many excellent teachers at STMA – I also have experienced tenured teachers who have lost most of their passion for their profession. Tenure is a serious detriment to providing a quality education experience for students.

Get this thread back on track. Al A., you need to let other people express their opinion. You have made yours very clear.

Custodians/Groundskeepers/Food Service, Paras, Office PT2
Vacation: All full time employees are eligible for vacation as well
1 year of work = 5 days vacation
5 years = 15 days
10 years = 18 days
13 years = 19 days
15 years = 20 days
18 years = 23 days
20 years = 25 days
In other words – employees from these categories could have up to 55 days off (including holidays). How does that stack up against your private sector job?
Regarding health care/dental this grouping receives a roughly 500(6k annual) dollar school district contribution towards single health care coverage and approximately 1K (12k annual) for family coverage. Private sector typically pay 20-25% of the cost of premimums if they have insurance – for this grouping it looks to be less than 10%.
The contract agreements for these groups do not note whether the school district contributes to PERA on behalf of the employees – however, the SEIU website clearly indicates that employees contribute 6.25% to their defined BENEFIT pension plan and the school district contributes 6.25%. Most private sector companies match 4% for a workers 401k program. Usually nothing after that.
And as with the TRA – if PERA doesn’t have the funds to pay out these defined BENEFIT plans – who do you think they will come to? The State taxpayer, of course.

Why are you so opposed to paying these people decent salaries? Don't you think it might help retain good employees.

Thanks for the numbers Al. Like I said above, I wish everyone in our district read this thread and looked at the numbers and links and then made an educated decision. I fear too many people will march lockstep down to the school and vote "for the kids" which is pure nonsense. Reforming the system would be a start. Disenfranchising from Doohers union would be a good start. Looking at salaries and positions would be another. $118k for an HR manager of a school district not counting benefits is WAY above the norm for this position, and as a fact, the average for an HR Manager, not director, is around 70k with a more moderate benefits package. Don't get me wrong. If my boss came up to me and said "Rick, you're a great employee and we're doubling your salary, cutting your copays for health and dental in half and giving you 36 hours PTO credit per month worked, I sure would not turn that down. It's been the norm to offer this stuff at taxpayer expense with a majority of the gvmt sector. If your suggestion regarding retirement was taken to heart and initiated, this lavy may have more supporters. But we all saw what happened in WI. Just look what's going on with the Mayors race in San Francisco right now too...

School board meeting tomorrow night at 7PM- agenda includes reports by our representatives Amy Koch and Joe McDonald. Come ask them questions as to how to balance a budget when the state is witholding 40% of money. Ask them what is in the works for reform. Also on the agenda is a report from Brad Lundell who is with Schools for Equity in Education. See link: http://www.schoolsforequity.org/About_Us.html

http://www.schoolsforequity.org/About_Us.html = lobbying group.

•Schools for Equity in Education (SEE) is an association of 58 school districts throughout the state of Minnesota. STMA is one of the 58. Below is further information:
SEE works for . . .

•Equal access to a quality education for all of Minnesota's students regardless of the property wealth in their local school district.
•Legislation that ensures equitable distribution of school resources.
•A property tax system that is fair and provides equal access to referendum and bond revenue for low property wealth school districts, communities and their taxpayers.
•Holding elected state officials accountable for adequate and equitable funding and policy that enables all students to meet state and federal academic standards and allows them to reach their highest potential.
•An educated and engaged community of parents, grandparents, community members, business leaders – everyone who values K-12 education in Minnesota to stand up and be a voice for our children and their schools.

To clarify again- the state average for district level administration is 5.4% of the budget and STMA spends 2.3%. The state average spent on district level administration is $553 per pupil and STMA is $179. Also, I was part of the levy advisory committee and no members were paid. There are several committees throughout the district and no members are paid- community curriculum advisory, community ed advisory council, technology advisory, and parent advisory committees at the schools.

This is the mentality that is out there. Another district pays "X" so we have to pay "X", rather than the other district looking at their numbers and asking themselves why their admin costs are so much.
The other issue (among the many) is there seems to be quite a communication gap going on. Only when this levy and the spectre of losing raised it's head did I start seeing emails from the district. I never saw an email looking for volunteers for a levy committee. And as such, the committees are hand picked most often by those desiring to see a levy enacted or in this case, one redacted in favor for a larger one.
Lastly, for those of us who work and have families, if I went to every city council meeting, every school board meeting, every PTO meeting, every council and advisory committee meeting, I'd have to quit my job as would mostly everyone else. So it's not a fact that most of us don't want to attend, it's plain and simple that we can't. Councils know this, school boards know this, thus a lot of stuff flies under the radar until it's too late.

Sonja, to clarify.. You say the state is withholding 40% of STMA's school budget funds? Or is the 40% you're talking about the requested raise in school funding in the states biennium budget that the DFL wanted and only got a partial increase? If the state were withholding 40%, what's asked for in this levy is the hair off of a peanut shell, not even the full peanut.
Where is the meeting at btw?

The board meeting is at Middle School West at 7PM. It would be nice to have the board meetings taped so that community members could view them at their convience. From the district website under the operating levy information tab FAQ:
5. Why does the district need more money?
Basic general education aid was frozen for two years and as a result state funding has not kept up with inflationary increases. While funding has not increased, the district must continue to provide the same level of state and federal mandated services. No Child Left Behind and special education programs are only partially funded mandates.
Minnesota school districts will receive only 90% of its state aid funding this year. The Minnesota state budget is balanced by delaying state aid payments to schools in a process called the “shift”. Initially, 10% of state aid was shifted to the next school year. Over time this was increased to 30% and for this year 40%. The effect is that the district will receive only 90% of its funding this year
– 60% of this year’s state aid and 30% of last year’s state aid.
The district may need to begin borrowing money in 2012-13 because of the shift and delay in state aid payments. The district is fiscally sound and operates under a balanced budget and has not needed to borrowed money in the past.

# 5 cont- Federal revenue pays the salaries and benefits for eight teachers. In 2010-11, these federal funds were used to add additional teachers when elementary class sizes became too large and for extra reading instruction to students who required additional assistance. This funding will be eliminated next year.
Money for technology is needed to replace computers. The oldest computers are at Big Woods and the replacement costs are estimated at $323,000.
The district has used bond dollars to not only build schools but also to maintain existing buildings. These funds are no longer available.

6. Didn’t the legislature and governor approve a $50 per pupil unit increase for each of the next two years in the general education aid?
Yes, the increase of the $50 per pupil unit is greatly appreciated. However, remember because of the shift the district will only receive $30 this year. It will be used to hire additional teachers for unanticipated increases in enrollment. The district does not wish to incur the expense of borrowing money because of the delay in state aid payments so the balance of the increase will be placed in reserve to offset the delay (shift) in state aid and prevent the district from borrowing money this year to cash flow the district.

7. What is the status of the 2011-12 school budget?

The district is financially sound. It has a balanced general education budget as it has for many years. The district has a 12% to 14% cash reserve so that is does not needed to borrow unlike many school districts in Minnesota. A Finance Advisory Committee meets several times in February through May to study projected revenues and expenditures and makes recommendations to the superintendent. The committee is made up of community members and staff.

Vote NO tomorrow for the following reasons
1) No meaningful spending reforms will happen unless stakeholders (taxpayers) begin to say NO to ever increasing costs without that reform. Hold the School district accountable. Educate yourself on the costs that are driving the demand for more of your money. Ask for reform and superior school performance. More money isn't always the right answer.
2)STMA is not Buffalo is not Elk RIver is not Monticello is not Minneapolis or anywhere else. Do not be fooled by the comparisons that others make to other districts. Each district has its own characteristics. STMA is largely comprised of parents who care about their kids' education - and that has been proven to be the prime component towards achievement success.

3) Most households are suffering from many difficult financial years - job loss, salary freeze, increased medical premium costs, house foreclosures, huge losses in their 401k/IRA's. Why shouldn't contract reform take precedence over tax increases?

4) Help the school district out by partnering with them to lobby for reduced Federal and State mandates - both legislation reform as well as providing the school district more flexibility in how the tax $ they take from you gets spent. After all, the goal here is to provide the best possible education for students at the least cost.

Vote NO now - with an eye on improving education in the long term.

I went to the school board meeting last night. Senator Amy Koch and Representative Joe McDonald spoke on the funding issues facing STMA. Much of the meeting centered on the inequity of state funding among Minnesota school districts. As the meeting progressed, it became very clear to me that this by far is the biggest obstacle facing our district. In my opinion, this inequity in funding is where we as District 885 tax payers should be outraged. Only five schools districts in the state receive less per pupil funding than STMA. We send our tax dollars off to St. Paul and they are being dispersed to other districts in the state. Monticello gets ~$1,000 more in per pupil funding from the state when compared to STMA. If our district received $1000 more in per pupil funding, we probably would not be having a debate about this levy. This inequity needs to be resolved at the state level and we need to push our state legislators and the governor to act. Unfortunately, this is probably not going to be resolved before our current levy expires. Until the funding issue is resolved, our district has no choice but to try to get this levy passed.

I’d like to thank Senator Koch and Representative McDonald for attending the meeting. It is unfortunate few members of our community were on hand to hear what they had to say.

If you value education in your own community, please vote YES today.