Jump to content



Photo

Administration vs. Education


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 Donna

Donna

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,453 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:12 PM

Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder how we will pay for education if we squander ALL our dollars on administrators? Just asking?


#2 rhouchens

rhouchens

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:01 PM

We managed when we had a higher paid Dr D I am sure we will manage I read where the new CFO wants to refinance some of the bonds that the district is carrying and will have a substantial savings I think we need to give this administration a chance we gave the prior administration 4 years I think we need to give this one more than 6 months.
  • Cracker Jack likes this

#3 Donna

Donna

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,453 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:21 PM

I'm not sure that Dr. D was higher paid, but he brought in MORE than his pay differential. You can "refinance" but you still OWE monies even if you stretch out payments to "afford" Administrative Excesses! The question I have is, "Will they balance the budget on student resources?"

#4 Donna

Donna

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,453 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:30 PM

My One Hope is . . . that after GCCS explodes the budget on Administrative costs, that they don't start discussing closing schools or pools! First & foremost, student resources should be non-negotiable. (From a different CCC thread, but I believe apropo.)

#5 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 11:25 PM

Dr. Daeschner was paid $225,000. Dr. Melin receives $180,000 - plus a $5000 car allowance, plus $20,000 moving expense allowance.
The new CFO was hired at a salary almost $10,000 more than the previous CFO plus he was given a $10,000 moving expnese allowance (something never done before for a CFO). Then the CFO hired an outside consultant to review the budget at another $5,000. Then at the last board meeting they hired yet another outside consultant to review the health insurance and feasibility of an in-house clinic -- this consultant supposedly costs $3500. Seems like GCCS has a highly paid agent of record (approx. $150,000) who works for a highly reputable agency (Neace Lukens) --- why not ask the agent of record or Neace for advice on opening an in-house clinic (for free!!). Why another outside consultant??? Don't we have enough inside star power to analyze the budget and other potential savings areas?

Let's see --- $180,000 salary plus $20,000 moving allowance plus $10,000 additional CFO compensation plus $10,000 moving allowance for CFO plus $5,000 for outside consultant to review budget plus $3,500 outside consultant to review health insurance/clinic = $228,500 --- that's more than Dr. D cost!!! So at least in year 1, there seems to be no savings at all.

(this does not take into consideration that GCCS hired a new director of IT --- someone from the outside, rather than looking at inside talent. This is a new position with a salary of approx. $85,000 plus benefits)

While reissuing bonds may save interest, the savings is over the life of the bond issue -- which is several years, not a current "windfall". Plus this was done during Dr. Daeschner's tenure as well. It is commonplace as interest rates fall and would have been done no matter who was the CFO or superintendent. But it should be noted that one of the first things done by this administration was to enter into new debt of $1,000,000 payable over 5 years (that's $200,000 a year in principal plus interest) to finance technology updates for several schools. The justification for this was that the interest rate was "low" and it made the loan feasible. Yet you still have to pay the principal --- it doesnt matter if the interest rate is 0, if you can't afford the principal payments, you can't afford the loan.

Now I understand that the admin wants to move the alternative school to the old admin building in January. But the fire marshal said a new sprinkler system was needed! Wonder how much that is going to cost. Another $20,000 to $40,000??

At the board meeting in late October, the outside consultant Marvin Ward said that cuts would have to be made BEFORE the end of this year. So far I have only seen more and more spending. I wonder when the cuts will take place and where they will come from?

#6 Avid Reader

Avid Reader

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:14 AM

Now I understand that the admin wants to move the alternative school to the old admin building in January. But the fire marshal said a new sprinkler system was needed! Wonder how much that is going to cost. Another $20,000 to $40,000??

At the board meeting in late October, the outside consultant Marvin Ward said that cuts would have to be made BEFORE the end of this year. So far I have only seen more and more spending. I wonder when the cuts will take place and where they will come from?


I would assume that the cost of the sprinkler system would be offset by the money from selling the building in which the alternative school currently resides.

I also assume that other budget cuts will come from not replacing retirees within the schools and the admin building. I also foresee the reassignment of the assistant superintendent to building principal in the coming months.

IM, I am glad you weighed in on this thread. You have financial expertise and explained the bond situation well.

#7 CaptainPicard

CaptainPicard

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 659 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:21 AM

I believe your figures IM but Dr. D, had the same moving expenses and perks as well. Seems to me that GCCS even paid some of his old house expenses as well. Let's make sure we are comparing apples to apples.
  • Cracker Jack likes this

#8 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:10 AM

Captain -- my post said "year 1" -- I was comparing what we are paying Melin this year to what we would have paid Dr D this year had he stayed--
although I believe he offered to stay for much less yet the board did not discuss it with him or make him an offer --- even though they said it was an option on the table! Dr. D got moving expenses and his house payment was made for about 3 months --- I agree with you. But my post was meant to show any savings/added expense for the current year--- which there is none.

#9 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:57 PM

I would assume that the cost of the sprinkler system would be offset by the money from selling the building in which the alternative school currently resides.

I also assume that other budget cuts will come from not replacing retirees within the schools and the admin building. I also foresee the reassignment of the assistant superintendent to building principal in the coming months.

IM, I am glad you weighed in on this thread. You have financial expertise and explained the bond situation well.



Not sure what bulding you are talking about --- there is no building to be sold. And, not only will the sprinker system be added, but a fence and a cafeteria and walls, etc -- most likely over $100,000 by the time they are done. Apparently a few "problem" students from Parkview and RV will be moved to the alternative school along with the high school students in order to help those two schools have a more positive image as they are losing students to Silver Creek and other schools. Maintenance workers and others who are currently in the admin bldg will be moved to RV and elsewhere.

I agree with you about Travis --- he most likely will be moved to principal at JHS as I am sure it is awkward for both Melin and Travis to work together when Travis had also applied for the supt position and was not hired. Perhaps he was promised the job at JHS at the time Melin was hired and that is why they had to get rid of Mr. Sexton asap in order to accomodate Travis. Is this really what is best for the students? Or is it once again all about the adults?

#10 hoppy

hoppy

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 44 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 06:42 PM

Bitter, bitter, bitter.
  • Cracker Jack likes this

#11 Donna

Donna

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,453 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:06 PM

Bitter, bitter, bitter.


Not sure how you came to this conclusion, since IM has been banging on this drum for a number of years. I was always so impressed with how well thought out her statements were and she IS an educational source in matters of finance. IMO, she makes us "Better, better, better!"

#12 hoppy

hoppy

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 44 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:21 PM

Negative, negative, negative.

#13 Donna

Donna

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,453 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:11 PM

Negative, negative, negative.


So, that's how you came to that the conclusion?

#14 Avid Reader

Avid Reader

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:55 PM

Not sure what bulding you are talking about --- there is no building to be sold. And, not only will the sprinker system be added, but a fence and a cafeteria and walls, etc -- most likely over $100,000 by the time they are done. Apparently a few "problem" students from Parkview and RV will be moved to the alternative school along with the high school students in order to help those two schools have a more positive image as they are losing students to Silver Creek and other schools. Maintenance workers and others who are currently in the admin bldg will be moved to RV and elsewhere.


The building I was referring to is located on10th Street between Child Place and the First Baptist Church. I believe it used to be a realty office. Isn't that the building where the options/Clark County High students are currently being taught? It was driven into a while back by a man fleeing the police. When the story ran in the Evening News, it stated that the Clark County High School is there. Isn't CCHS what we're talking about moving to the old administration building? If I am mistaken, please advise.

#15 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:25 PM

The building I was referring to is located on10th Street between Child Place and the First Baptist Church. I believe it used to be a realty office. Isn't that the building where the options/Clark County High students are currently being taught? It was driven into a while back by a man fleeing the police. When the story ran in the Evening News, it stated that the Clark County High School is there. Isn't CCHS what we're talking about moving to the old administration building? If I am mistaken, please advise.


The building you are talking about is not owned by GCCS. I believe it is owned by Childplace and is used for some students from Childplace. There are, I believe, two teachers there and Mr. Sexton oversees it. ( someone correct me if I am wrong). Mr. Sexton and the alternative students are currently in the old admin building but there are plans to expand the alternative school and make room for more students from Parkview and River Valley -- in order to do this several changes have to be made. The portion of the building used by the maintenance dept and IT people will be renovated and a sprinkler system and cafeteria added as well as interior walls changed. I have also heard that a fence will be installed at River Valley along with security cameras since the maintenance vehicles and equipment will now be kept at RV. All these changes will cost a substantial amount of money.

Edited by IntegrityMatters, 10 December 2012 - 11:37 AM.


#16 rhouchens

rhouchens

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:30 PM

Not sure how you came to this conclusion, since IM has been banging on this drum for a number of years. I was always so impressed with how well thought out her statements were and she IS an educational source in matters of finance. IMO, she makes us "Better, better, better!"

But not in the opinion of the majority of voters in Greater Clark school system she may be beating the same old drum but it is still the same bitter tune.

#17 Donna

Donna

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,453 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:10 PM

It NEVER was a bitter tune, no matter what the "majority of voters" decided. IM wasn't in this for the "majority of voters", she was and is in this for the Children of our community. Stop trying to make her out as the enemy. It's okay to not agree with her . . . it is NOT OKAY to villify her.
  • GrumpyGranny likes this

#18 Donna

Donna

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,453 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 10:30 PM

January 8th is the swearing in of new officers. I hope they take their oaths to heart.

#19 CaptainPicard

CaptainPicard

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 659 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:37 PM

January 8th is the swearing in of new officers. I hope they take their oaths to heart.



That's a really nice thought. It would be a welcome change.

#20 Donna

Donna

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,453 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:00 PM

Addendum #1 to Superintendent’s Contract




1. Provision #2. Employment of Superintendent and Term of Employment


Delete the following language:

Based on receipt of superior performance evaluations during the initial term of this Contract, the Contract shall be extended for one (1) additional year at the conclusion of the initial term without further Board action.
Insert the following language:

Based on receipt of an annual "effective" performance evaluation as established by the evaluation tool developed by the ISBA and Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents (IAPSS), one (1) additional year will be added to the Superintendent’s employment contract. The result will provide a continuing three (3) year contract for the Superintendent as long as "effective" performance evaluations are received.
2. Provision #5, Section i. Tax Sheltered Annuity
Delete the following language:

Said amount shall be funded in July following the end of each year of the Contract’s term.
Insert the following language:

Said annual amount shall be prorated and funded on a monthly basis during the term of the contract.
Christina Gilkey, Board President Kevin Satterly, Board Secretary
Date: December 4, 2012




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users