According to a tweet from Lee’s Holly Michels, unemployment in Montana has (predictably) skyrocketed, with 41,000 new claims filed in just Sunday and Monday of this week:
No, instead of pausing their addiction to taxes — for even one year, as we all grapple with a historically punishing economic collapse — our masters on The Hill remain hell-bent on levying a permanent tax on the rest of us so they can fatten their salaries while so many of us, hard at work just weeks ago, are now forced into joblessness and financial uncertainty.
It is staggering to witness just how little regard our school administrators and trustees have for the people who pay the bills, isn’t it?
I recently emailed all of the School Board candidates and asked them the following question:
Q: In this time of crisis when residents are out of work, are you in favor of acting as Bozeman and Belgrade did by cancelling, or rescheduling the levy for a later time?
E-City Beat will publish each of the candidates’ responses, completely unedited, and in the order in which we receive them.
The first candidate to respond was Bill Bronson. Below is his answer in its entirety:
A: No. Any decision cancelling or postponing the election must be based on measured consideration of all circumstances facing our school district and our community. While we must cope with the current situation brought on by COVID-19, we must also address a long-standing problem with the level of commitment to our local schools.
Over the past ten years, more than $10 million has been cut from the local school budget, and more than 100 teaching positions have been eliminated. It is harder now for our district to hire and retain teachers. Many schoolbooks are outdated. The negative impact on students, teachers, and future growth of our community is unacceptable. The mill levy request, limited to elementary school funding, will have a modest impact on taxpayers. Given that the current COVID-19 crisis is expected to peak and end by summer, proceeding with this critical mill levy request for funding to begin in the late fall is, on balance, necessary. It is an essential investment that we cannot afford to forgo.
Bozeman and Belgrade have experienced significant population growth, translating into greater numbers of students in their school systems. These communities have not experienced what Great Falls has the past ten years, and have greater flexibility to deal with problems like COVID-19. Bozeman has chosen to cancel two levies approximating $669,000, but is continuing with a transitional levy request of $1 million to assure that district’s ability to maintain local support for their new high school in the coming years. Belgrade appears poised to reach a new threshold of student population increases over the next year which will allow that district to adjust its budget to meet the demand, so cancelling a levy request there does not carry with it the same ramifications as those facing Great Falls.
In a recent letter to the editor, Gerry Jennings urged support for the upcoming school levy. After making a suspect claim about class sizes, Jennings regurgitated an even more questionable argument about public education and its relationship to economic development.
“My four children received the best education the state had to offer during the ‘70s and ‘80s. They had choices of classes, some of which don’t exist anymore.
We are losing great teachers who are finding better opportunities elsewhere, and our classrooms are overcrowded. Is that what we want for our kids and teachers?”
Ignoring the fact that class sizes were actually larger in the 70s, Jennings suggested that passing school levies is good for the local economy, and that employers, as a result of recently failed levies, are now steering clear of Great Falls:
“Businesses are finding that potential employers are saying NO to GF, due to lack of support for our public school education.”
Really? OK, which businesses?
Jennings’ argument by implication is that a number of companies, otherwise ready to relocate to and invest in our community, were ultimately deterred from doing so because recent school levies, typically in the $1-2 million range, have at times been rejected by the voters.
Again, though, which business is she talking about?
Jennings, in addition to the many other GFPS cheerleaders who parrot this same political talking point year after year, should tell us unambiguously who said “NO” — for this reason. Is it really true that a spate of entrepreneurs was set to move into River City, but balked only when an operational levy or two fell short? Why didn’t our community’s much more substantial investment in infrastructure (the tenth of a billion dollar school bond) matter to these investors? Are the businesses Jennings talks to of the position that schools must be unquestionably supported 100%? Is it possible that, actually, businesses avoid Great Falls because of high property taxes, and not for a lack of absolute fealty to Tammy Lacey and Tom Moore?
Alternatively, since the Jennings’s of the world are convinced that funding public education is inexorably linked to economic development, a thoughtful person might ponder the inverse of this question: after Great Falls voters generously passed a $100 million bond levy in 2016 — an amount 50-100 times greater than the average operational levy — which new businesses came to Great Falls as a result of this considerable investment? What, exactly, were the measurable impacts? Did an economic renaissance sweep our community without anyone noticing?
Jennings owes us specificity, and so does every School Board candidate who wants to ram yet another permanent tax down our throats, even as we cope with a historically crippling global pandemic.
Is it time for the Great Falls Public School District to take their foot off the levy pedal and apply the brakes?
It is apparent that the school district’s overpaid administrators and the local rubber-stamp school board are heading full speed ahead with guns blazing to take another $1.75 Million from the taxpayer’s pockets on May 8.
More district administrators are set to join the $100K club if the levy passes and they receive their 2% raises.
You’d probably say they have more guts than a government mule, and you’d be right. They are short on ideas and results, but no one can say they are short on guts.
Or are they just plain dumb? As John Wayne is famous for saying “Life is tough, but it’s tougher when you’re stupid”.
As one of our readers noted in the following letter of appeal:
“Great Falls Public School Board,
In these unprecedented times, with a deadly virus sweeping our state and our nation, you need to rethink placing the school levy on the ballot this year. Belgrade has canceled its school levy election and on the news this morning, I heard that Bozeman has canceled school levies as well. Great Falls Public Schools should do the same.
Our country is hurting financially, emotionally and mentally due to this virus. The middle of a federally declared national emergency is not the time to be asking voters, many of whom are out of work, for more money. It will show that GFPS is insensitive to the plight of the voters. We are all making sacrifices at this difficult time. GFPS needs to follow suit, tighten its belt and do the best with the resources it currently possesses.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Jeni Dodd“
The GFPS administrator’s actions with this levy they don’t need, (the district has a reported reserve of federal impact funds of more than $8.5 Million), are like the pig making the farmer squeal.
Other school districts in Montana see the stupidity and long-lasting public relation errors in promoting a self-serving levy during our present national crisis.
“The Bozeman School Board agreed Friday to cancel two of three tax-raising requests on the May 5 ballot because of the economic pain facing taxpayers from the coronavirus epidemic shutting down the nation’s economy…
Earlier this month the school board had agreed to ask voters to OK two tax increases totaling $669,000 to help the elementary schools and high school cover the regular costs of paying teachers, light bills and the like.
But in the face of the virus pandemic, hundreds of businesses have closed, many people have lost their jobs and unemployment insurance applications have skyrocketed.
‘Given today’s climate and circumstances, it makes an immense amount of sense’ to cancel those two tax requests, said Trustee Tanya Reinhardt.”
“Due to the economic fallout of the COVID-19 crisis, the Belgrade School Board voted Monday to cancel the May 5 levy elections that would have asked voters for a combined $1.1 million to fund school operations and pay for new technology in the elementary district.
Superintendent Godfrey Saunders recommended that the action in light of the economic impacts of COVID-19 closures on the community.
‘There are many families having difficult times right now, and there is a lot of uncertainty,’ Saunders told the Belgrade News Monday afternoon. ‘We don’t want to add something else to their plates right now.’”
Only time will tell if the GFPS administrators and school board will come to their collective senses – if they don’t, an overwhelming NO vote on May 8 will certainly provide the smelling salts.
Editor’s Note: Just prior to posting, Jeni Dodd received the following gratuitous reply to her above letter.
“Thank you Jeni for your input. We have discussed the pros and cons of continuing to move forward with the Levy. We are sensitive to the current economic situation in the US and locally. The financial needs of the district to provide a high quality education for our children have not diminished with the recent events related to COVID-19. If anything, the needs of our children and teachers will be even greater when school resumes. Your concerns have been noted.
Respectfully,
Thomas G. Moore Superintendent“
If the levy passes and all GFPS administrators receive a 2% raise, Mr. Moore will receive $3,200.
Is the GFPS District really short of cash, or are their cries just a sleight of hand?
If, as Mark Finnicum, a school board member who also serves on the board’s budget committee said, the $1.75M upcoming levy isn’t to add new programs or staff but “is maintaining what we already have” is true…
…why is the district sitting on $8,958,473 of Federal Impact Aid Funds?
(According to school district staff, since the June 30, 2018 budget reported the GFPS Federal Impact Aid fund account at $9,563,780 it has only been reduced by $605,307, leaving the most recent balance at $8,958,473.)
According to the Montana Legislature Interim Committee on School Funding, “Federal Impact Aid to Montana’s school districts is classified as ‘Non-budgeted’ funds and can be used for a wide variety of expenses, including the salaries of teachers and teacher aides; purchasing textbooks, computers, and other equipment; after school programs and remedial tutoring; advanced placement classes; and special enrichment programs.
Most Impact Aid funds are considered general aid to the recipient school districts and may be used in whatever manner they choose, in accordance with state and local requirements. Although most school districts use Impact Aid for current expenditures, funds may also be used for capital expenditures. Payments for Children with Disabilities must be used for the extra costs of educating these children.”
The district’s General Fund figure for school years 2000 – 2001 $50,478,160 has increased for 2019-2020 to $71,538,984, which reflects a $21,060,824, or almost a 30% increase while enrollment for the same period has declined by 1,299 students.
This should confirm that the district’s growth has occurred because the district has now become a social services agency providing medical services, daycare, counseling and adult education.
Additionally, the administration has become bloated, like may other school systems, with salaries topping the charts.
Our City, County and Nation are facing the worst health and financial crisis of our lifetimes. Now is not the time for the school district to ask local taxpayers to dip deeper into their pockets for a school levy that the school district doesn’t need.
It is time for the school district to live within their means and redefine their mission to provide public education.
The Great Falls Public School District would like you to believe that the impact of the proposed $1.75M operational levy would result in a very small increase to your property taxes, $16.27 on a home valued at $100,000 and $32.54 on a home valued at $200,000.
The fact is that the impact of the levy will be much more. Why?
First, homeowners are not the only ones supporting the school district, business owners pay property tax to the school district too. Privately owned utilities pay property taxes to the school district as one of our astute E-City Beat readers found out.
Not all privately owned utilities are as transparent as Energy West-Montana, which recently indicated that the cost of providing natural gas to homeowners and businesses increased due to added property tax costs, i.e. the recent $98M school bond. Every time property taxes increase, so will your heating costs.
Added property taxes increase the costs for all goods and services. That’s how it works, and that’s everything you buy and consume.
Think about that when you vote, and remember that this levy will benefit school district staff and administrator raises, not “the kids”.
No, we are not talking about the graduation rate at the District’s two high schools, not even close. And we are not talking about the District budgeting acumen either.
What we are talking about is how much of the proposed $1.3M operational levy will be going for raises for staff and administrative positions and increases in employee health insurance premiums. 100%. That means no new programs for students and no new technology.
Most taxpayers in Great Falls feel that the District’s high paid administrative positions are like a runaway train and need to be reined in.
14 Administrators out of the total 48 positions make more than $100,000.
17 more positions out of the total 48 make more than $90,000.
7 more positions out of the total 48 make more than $80,000.
The Governor of Montana makes $115,505. The Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court makes $145,619. OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT MAKES $160,000
The school district will no doubt respond by saying that paying it’s staff more money has a positive effect on student achievement. But does it really produce better student outcomes?
The article reports that after examining five years of comprehensive data on spending in all 422 school districts in Wisconsin, it concluded that “the relationship between student outcomes and overall per-student spending, spending on teacher salaries, and spending on administrative personnel, that none of the types of spending examined were found to correlate with better student outcomes. Of the three, perhaps the least surprising is that more spending on non-teaching staff leads to worse student outcomes.”
Just maybe our school district needs a new paradigm, not new taxes.
Although, lying has been around forever, it is now becoming a common practice by propagandists and pundits wanting to promote individual, or collective agendas.
Straight-out lying has been destigmatized if it advances a certain propaganda that leads to what might be considered a worthy, or important goal. Whether the goal, or objective pursued is objectively beneficial is not an important consideration. Justification for lying to the public through a belief that the propagandist occupies some intellectual or moral high ground is often meant to disguise an ulterior motive, self-interest, or arrogance.
Another common practice is lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions.
A person doesn’t have to look much further than the Great Falls Public School District to see implementation of these strategies.
GFPS and their pundits continue to tell us that we need to pass their $1.3 million operational levy in May because it’s “for the kids. The truth is that it is again 100% for pre-negotiated salary and health insurance premium increases for employees.
The money from this proposed levy will not buy one textbook, not one added program to benefit students, and not even one piece of chalk.
The bloated administrator salaries totaling millions will also be increased because every time the district staff receives a raise so do the administrators, many of whom are already making six digits.
Keep in mind that the administrators, the ones negotiating the contracts, are also benefiting from the raises which they negotiate for staff.
An almost identical operational levy was defeated last year, and now that taxpayers have felt the pain of the $98 million bond a few years ago, the District will be putting on a full court press to get this year’s levy passed. Their pundits are even soliciting canvassers at $15 and hour to go door to door to repeat the spiel.
All property taxpayers should be aware that operational levies never retire, they go on forever and pile on top of past approved levies. Renters should also know that their monthly rents will no doubt increase due to the passage of another levy.
It is fair to say a large number of property taxpayers are opposed to voting for yet another school district levy.
Based on recent school district levies, both those which passed, and those which have failed, it is also fair to say taxpayers have gotten the good, the bad and the ugly for their hard-earned tax dollars.
The Good are the teachers in the district who use their education, skills and creativity to go beyond their perfunctory duties and encourage students to contemplate, debate, and communicate ideas.
The Bad are the over-the-top administration salaries.
These salaries have increased twice since the list shown above from 2017. Each time the teachers get a 2% raise, so do the administrators.
And because administrator’s retirement benefits are calculated on their three highest paid years. According to the chairman of the school board, the last superintendent is collecting $80K a year in retirement benefits.
How about reducing the administration salaries to pay teachers more? A 20% reduction would be very close to the $1M needed for teacher raises.
The Ugly.
Horrible graduation rates; 80% as reported by the office of public instruction. That means 20 students out of every 100 do not graduate, albeit, on time.
Add to that the ugly addition to GFH and the destruction of a historic campus, the purchase of a property for a small parking lot without the required vote of the public because the property is not contiguous to the existing campus, and the deforestation of approximately 70 eighty-year old campus trees without permission from the City.
With the coming of the new year comes another attempt by the Great Falls Public School District to raise your taxes. “What?”, you say, “We’ve just given them $98 million dollars and now they want more, $1.3 million more. For what?”
Well of course, the school district will tell you it’s for the kids, but is it really?
No, not exactly, it is totally for raises and health insurance increases for staff, and that includes the “six-figure” administrators.
It seems that the great negotiators at the district contractually promised raises and a chicken in every pot even though they didn’t have the money, or the pot. What the cluck, it’s for the kids, in a roundabout way, right?
Well, here’s the truth, $1 million for raises and $300K for health insurance premiums.
I know, you are saying they have more guts than a government mule. The truth is that they are a government mule and they are just as stubborn too.
With a declining population in Great Falls and with a declining student enrollment in the district, they refuse to change their operating model to adjust for reality.
While your latest property tax bill increase is still fresh in your mind, reflect on whether you can afford more taxes. If your answer is no then you know what you have to do come the first Tuesday in May when you receive your school district ballot.
Maybe take a clue from Shane Joyce’s “The Same Old Song”, “…they put taxes on everything…pretty soon they’ll tax you for living in your skin”.
