Where to build an elementary school?

There could be some lively discussion this Tuesday on who needs an elementary school more: the West or Vineyard.  At Board Meeting for Tuesday, Sept 10, 2019, the ASD board has a discussion item: Plan for Phase IV Buildings.  You can find the agenda here. The enrollment numbers can be found on pages 208-209 of the meeting documents here.

The fly in the ointment is that in November, 2017, after the board decided to consolidate Hillcrest and Scera Park elementaries in Orem, the board voted to put a new elementary in Vineyard as part of Phase 4 of the existing bond.  At that time, I asked whether or not the numbers supported this, as it was a couple of years out.  I was told that, yes it did.  I apologize that I didn't stand up more forcefully against promising something so far out.  But, as the numbers appear right now, Vineyard is large, but there are options.  Here are the current enrollment numbers for elementaries with lots of students:

Brookhaven: 1346
Sage Hills: 1152Black Ridge: 1141
Vineyard: 1103
Dry Creek: 1053
Hidden Hollow: 999
Harvest: 984
Pony Express: 965

If you notice, with the exception of Vineyard, all these schools are out west.  So, here's the thing.  Vineyard is near Orem and here are some numbers from schools in Orem (which, granted, are often, if not always, smaller than the ones out west).

Geneva: 305
Suncrest: 395
Aspen: 404Westmore: 463
Windsor: 570
Bonneville: 579

So, Vineyard's high numbers could be offset by changing the boundaries and moving some of the kids in Vineyard to surrounding schools.  There are options for Vineyard.  The other schools out west have no options for moving kids around because all their surrounding schools are also really full.  It seems like a no-brainer to me for the board to simply change the decision we made in 2017 (which is completely legal), and designate two new elementary schools out west to be the final elementaries built with the current bond.  Another bond is in the planning stages for the 2020 ballot.  But even if that passes, it would take an allocation from the board in 2021, and so, best case, another elementary couldn't be completed until probably 2022.  That means the west would continue to grow for 2.5 more years without any options other than the one elementary (which is definitely needed).  To me, it makes sense to alleviate Vineyard by changing boundaries and building 2 new elementaries out west.

Why would this not be self-evident?  Well, because Orem residents weren't pleased with the Hillcrest/Scera Park consolidation and wanted a promise on the Vineyard school.  The argument could be made that the board is going back on a promise made to those residents.  True, except the majority of the board has changed from 2017.  There are only 3 board members currently on the board who were there in 2017.  Plus, the reason why you have a board that makes decisions on an on-going basis is so they can address things, as they come up.  The reason why the 2 elementary schools were not named in the original bond proposal was because it's hard to project things more than a year or so out.  My "spidey-sense" should have gone off in 2017 to think that it would be at least 2 more years before these elementaries would break ground.  I should have voted no.  The other rumor is that if Vineyard isn't named as one of the elementaries on this final phase of the bond, then the Orem City Council might choose to break off and form their own school district.  In my opinion, if they want the higher tax burden of doing this in order to keep smaller, neighborhood schools, I'm in favor of them deciding to do whatever makes sense for them. And if not, then the board needs to stand by the numbers and the logistics as they are today, and not what we thought they'd be two years ago.

Please feel free to come to the board meeting at the District Office in AF at 6pm on Tuesday.  Public comments are always welcome.  You just have to sign up beforehand.

Tax Incentives for Development: Eagle Mountain CRA

Not all taxpayer dollars go directly to the schools.  Often developers get tax incentives to build things sooner and increase property values, providing  a rebate, if you will, of their property taxes over a set period of time. The Alpine School Board will be voting on a tax incentive for a company to locate in Eagle Mountain on Wednesday, May 23, @ 8am @ the District Office (575 N. 100 E., American Fork).  You can read about it here.  Here's what almost no one knows and what you need to know. 

Tax Increment Financing
When I first was elected to the Board, one of the things I was completely oblivious to was Tax Incentives for Development, also known as Tax Increment Financing (TIF).  There are many different acronyms that have been used over the years (RDA, UDA, CDA, EDA), and we currently have CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency).  The thinking is that if a developer/corporation comes into an under-developed area and develops it, then the taxes that would have gone to create things like roads, sewers, water lines, etc can be rebated to the developer. The benefit to the community is that it takes less time for the developer to do this, increasing the property value sooner than it otherwise would have, if left on its own with the City providing the infrastructure and development occurring organically.  It is an incentive to grow development and infrastructure.  The developer gets a tax break and the community gets faster development and increased property values, and theoretically property taxation. 

Poor analogy, but in essence, if you finish off the dirt road to your home as part of a rebuild of your property, the City would agree to give you a rebate on the taxes you owe in order to let you cover the cost of that infrastructure.  The City then gets higher property taxes from you sooner than if they waited and you didn't rebuild your home, as soon or ever. 

The way the law is structured, each taxing entity (the City, the County, the Water District, the School District, etc) MAY choose to enter an agreement with a redevelopment agency/developer (RDA).  The terms for this are, often, for the next 20 years, the RDA will get to keep 80% of the taxes it should be paying and the city or county or district will get the remaining 20%, or 50-50 or 75-25, etc. This is part of the negotiations.  After 20 years, everyone pays what they normally would.  The "increment" part is important because the taxing entity gets 100% of what they are currently getting in property taxes.  So the 80%/20% is only on the difference between what the developed value is and the current value when the project began.  So, in the case of Eagle Mountain, the current taxes to the district amount to $42/year.  When the agreement is completed, the amount the district is projected to receive is approximately $2.5M ($500,000/20%) in real property tax.  In the interim, the district would receive the $42 + about $500,000 per year for that 20 year period.

More Info on Eagle Mountain CRA
The other thing to know about the Eagle Mountain CRA is they are requesting not only the 80% in real property as a rebate, but also 100% of the personal property tax during that 20 year period.  So, the estimates assume a total of $5.3M after 20 years in property taxes.  What we do know is this will be a data center owned by a Fortune 100 company.  The City has signed a confidentiality agreement to not disclose the identity of the company.  The project area will be 2 miles square (nearly 500 acres) and all of it will be for a data center.  They project 40 permanent employees for that data center.  However, I have seen some Facebook posts from those in Eagle Mountain who say the project could bring in 1400 jobs in construction and support. 

Sales Tax Exemption
Another important piece is the legislature just passed a law giving data centers an exemption from paying sales tax on the equipment they buy.  The assumption is they will be spending lots of money on keeping, maintaining and replacing equipment, about every 6 years.  The sponsor of the bill, Sen. Howard Stephenson, felt this would be a good incentive to get data centers to locate in Utah while increasing the property tax amount that schools receive.  If you only have 40 employees, and you get a break on sales tax, but pay property tax, this would be an excellent way to increase funding for schools, especially in the lowest funded state in the nation.  It was not envisioned that those companies would try to get a property tax rebate as well through a CRA, since they were already getting no sales tax.

So What's the Concern?
Government Picking Winners and Losers
The biggest concern I have is one of principle.  It isn't good government to have government entities picking winners and losers for tax breaks based on how much they can "provide" to the governmental entity.  Who knows that a competitor might not be just around the corner but isn't in a position to make such incredible demands of a governing board or council.  So, as a matter of principle, I always vote no on these--from the Vineyard RDA in 2011 to the University Mall CDA a couple of years ago.  Others on our board see it differently.  And many citizens do, as well.  At the end of the day, why should a well-connected, rich and powerful company be able to negotiate a better tax deal than you or I or any other small business owner in the state?  A company that is said to be on the Fortune 100 list is not in want of funding to pay property taxes for schools.  I understand, in part, the City wanting them to pay for infrastructure, but the school district is not on the line for that infrastructure. 

Why Encourage Growth When Growth Is A Concern
My second concern is I see no reason to incentivize growth with tax rebates, as it were, in an area where our biggest challenge is growth.  We are struggling to keep up with growth already.  Why would we want to encourage more growth and decrease the amount of taxes those who are coming in will pay? 

Water
A data center needs lots of water.  We live in a desert.  Eagle Mountain City says water will not be a concern.  The data center is paying for water shares and they have enough of that.  I'm still a skeptic.  Our city thinks we have enough water too and we keep issuing building permits, but every summer, I'm still asked to ration my watering.  It may look okay on paper, but the funny thing about water in a desert is there is still only so much that falls from the sky.  This year isn't one where we have more than enough.  I hope the City is correct and that water won't be a problem. 

Apples-to-Apples Comparisons
One of those who emailed on this issue also mentioned that, while he supports this kind of financing, it's important to look at apples-to-apples comparisons.  You don't compare $42/year to $500,000, you compare what amount of development you need to have in order get that $500,000 over the next 20 years, if you open the area up for development.  If you could reasonably get someone to develop that area and the improvements were assessed for $157,000 per acre, then the property tax revenue would equal what is being projected under this proposal.  If the assessed value were greater, then we would get more revenue than under this project.  The assumption that the land isn't being used and won't ever be in the near (20 years) future isn't a completely accurate assumption.  Once upon a time, Lehi was considered undeveloped and in the middle of nowhere.  Also, right now in Highland $150,000/acre isn't an unreasonable amount for just the land.  I realize Eagle Mountain is different, but how much development in buildings and so forth would be needed to reach that $157,000 mark?  And is it possible that this would occur naturally in a few years?  If this company wanted the CRA for 5 years, or maybe 10 years, I think you could make the case that it's unlikely that development would accelerate in the area enough to create that level of return to the tax coffers.  However, in 20 years?  It's very possible.  Again, look at our county just a few decades ago.

Pressure From Elected Officials and How Utah Incentivizes Economic Development
We have had requests for support from the Governor, Rep. Mia Love, Sen. Jake Anderegg, Rep. Jeff Moss, and the Eagle Mountain Mayor and City Council.  We have been told that this project is the number one priority of the Governor and the Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED).  Additionally, I found out there is a non-profit organization, EDC Utah, that apparently exists and works with GOED to search out and incentivize businesses to come in to the state.  This is done by working with local entities to give tax breaks to these companies, all of which are allowed by law.  The school district is not required to participate in these tax incentives.  But the way this works is everyone else who makes up the 30% of property taxes that don't go to the schools is happy to make these deals, dependent on the school district's 70% being in play.  I don't know how many times I've been told that we have to go along or the entire deal will fall through.  It seems to me that if the entire thing is based on the school district, then we should be the ones who are approached initially, not after everyone else has decide this is a great idea.  (And in this case, we found out on Friday night, with a request to decide last Tuesday.  That wasn't going to happen.) 

A most important point, however, is that no one who is asking for the school district's support is responsible for making sure that our schools are not overcrowded.  There is nothing they have to lose; no risk they have to take.  If the company comes in and generates tax revenue for the state overall or the city?  Great.  If the business being in the city increases the growth of business and housing in the city overall?  Great, they get impact fees to offset the attendant growth.  Except for the school district.  We still have to find a way to accommodate that growth without the benefit of setting money aside for that growth.  We will have to bond.  And if the schools become overcrowded because of this project, not a single person will be willing to look to these tax incentive programs as a problem.  If these programs were sufficient to accommodate growth of the district, then we wouldn't have a problem with growth in Lehi because we've got plenty of these CRAs in that city...to the tune of  $15M per year in tax incentives.  Not enough for an elementary school, but close.

How To Fund Growth In Schools: Can't use impact fees
While I understand the benefit to the City, and if this project were a complete stand-alone that would have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the schools (and how would you prove that), this would make sense.  But we are struggling to keep up with the growth already.  Should this project incentivize additional growth, then that $500,000 per year would be insufficient.  It costs nearly $800,000 just to run an elementary school for a year, not to mention the cost to build and the teachers, etc.  A company that is said to be on the Fortune 100 list is not in want of funding to pay property taxes for schools.  I understand, in part, the City wanting them to pay for infrastructure, but the school district is not in charge of that infrastructure.  If those 1400 support jobs end up bringing in an additional 2 kids per person (2800), that is the equivalent of one very large high school.  Right now, we are projecting we will need to build at least one high school and one junior high by 2025.  So, is it reasonable to assume over the next 20 years that the district will need to build, in addition to what is already projected another high school, maybe 1 or 2 middle schools, and 3-4 elementary schools for those additional 2800 kids?  One high school alone costs $83M.  $10M ($500,000 * 20 years) is only a drop in the bucket in building a single high school, let alone a middle school ($30 - 40M) and multiple elementaries ($20M each).  Unlike the City or the County, the school district does not get to charge impact fees.  What that means is as new development comes in, the city and the county assess a certain amount to go to expand their sewers or their water retention ponds or the police force, etc.  As a district, we have been prohibited by state law for at least 15 years from being able to assess fees to plan ahead for growth that we clearly can see coming.  Instead, we are forced to bond every four years to infuse cash into our system that doesn't already exist to accommodate building new schools.  While impact fees wouldn't necessarily pay for all of the $83M for a new high school, it would be nice to know there was a way to set aside a certain amount based on new growth, just like the cities and the counties do.  Our bonding for growth model is not a model, it's a stop-gap measure.  In a way, it makes us not want to encourage growth in our communities because that growth just means we have to bond and pay for more schools, instead of having something that we can automatically use to set money aside for those schools that we will surely need. 

Additionally, as a district, we only ever project out 5 years.  In part, because we know that 5 years from now, those kids who are born this year, will need a place to go to school.  Everything else is conjecture.  So, to say that Eagle Mountain will not have this area developed to this degree in the next 20 years and that no growth will result for the schools in that same period of time, because of this development, is known only by looking into a crystal ball. 

In my opinion, the school district should not authorize any more tax incentive plans until such time as the state legislature decides to allow impact fees or comes up with a better way of funding school buildings based on a community's growth.  Asking people in Orem or Pleasant Grove to bond to pay for the growth in Eagle Mountain or Lehi isn't a good way of handling checks and balances in government.  And if Lehi or Eagle Mountain were responsible for their own growth, I think there would be fewer problems with overcrowding, and something like this proposal might make sense to the people of Eagle Mountain.  It doesn't make sense to the people in the rest of the district because we need the money to fund growth now, not in 20 years.

Local Building Authority

On January 9, 2018, our Alpine School Board decided to create a Local Building Authority (LBA).  The main reason behind this is to rebuild Scera Park Elementary in Orem in order to consolidate that population of students with Hillcrest.  Hillcrest will be closed but the property will be retained for future use.  Since the original consolidation plan included many more schools and the possible sale of the Hillcrest property, the savings from those closures and the sale of the property would have allowed the Board to pay cash to rebuild Scera Park.  As such, the savings from closing Hillcrest will be close to $800,000 each year, but insufficient to rebuild an school at the cost of $18M.  So, the LBA was created to accomplish this goal.

An LBA is allowed under state law and allows the Board to finance things over time without using property tax increases as collateral for the debt.  School districts in this state are not allowed to use a regular debt scenario like you and I do for a mortgage or a construction loan.  We have to either pay everything off within a year (short-term loan) or use a tax-related funding process.  We could also do something called a revenue loan which would work if we were building a rec center and we could use the fees (the revenue) from that rec center as the payment.

You can read all the information, including the By-Laws and the Articles of Incorporation here. (See Local Building Authority Mtg Documents.pdf)  The LBA is subject to the same open meeting laws as the ASD Board, and all LBA meetings will be held at the same location and place as the ASD Board meetings, when an LBA meeting is required.

The essence is this.  The ASD Board of Education (ASD Board) members automatically become the Board of Trustees of the Alpine Local Building Authority (LBA).  So as members are elected and so forth, the make-up of the LBA changes accordingly.  I had concerns about the ability of the LBA to remove board members and that language was removed from our documents.  The action of the Board on the 9th simply created a non-profit corporation, the LBA.  At the Jan. 23 meeting of the LBA, the proposal will be to seek a loan for the purpose of rebuilding Scera Park.  The LBA gets the "mortgage" for Scera Park and the school is the collateral for the loan.  The ASD Board then signs a lease with the LBA for Scera Park, paying the amount required to cover the cost of the Scera Park loan.  Then the LBA gets the amount agreed to in the lease from the ASD Board and pays the lender for the Scera Park loan.  The LBA, as a non-profit, makes no money in the transaction.  The lease is also written so that upon payment of the loan in full, Scera Park will automatically transfer ownership from the LBA to the ASD Board.  This allows the amount saved from consolidating Hillcrest of nearly $800,000 to be used, annually, to pay off, over time, the Scera Park rebuild.

My opinion of the Pros.  The advantages I see are: 1) The Hillcrest consolidation savings are used to pay-off Scera Park. 2) There is no tax increase required for this transaction and the savings in one area of the budget can be used to pay for buildings.  Currently, this could only be done if we chose to pay cash completely for the building.  We could use our rainy-day fund to pay for Scera Park upfront, and then take 18 years to pay it back.  That decreases our rainy-day fund by about 20% with no guarantee that it would be repaid.  The decrease would also negatively impact our credit rating for future bond rates.  3) It allows for building construction to begin more quickly without going through a bond election and so forth.  In theory, if we had the funds in the budget from savings in other areas, some of the West's growth could be accommodated by accelerating buildings without waiting for the bond cycle in 2020.

My opinion of the Cons.  1) The LBA only requires 24 hour notice for actions that regular board meetings are given.  The LBA can go into debt for any number of buildings, additions, appurtenances either inside or outside the district boundaries with a simple majority vote by the LBA board (aka the ASD Board).  2) The Board could use the LBA to finance things that do not take precedence on a bond by the public.  In short, it could skew our building priorities to reflect more internal priorities instead of those demanded by the people.  Some of the things that might be financed by the LBA board which the public hasn't wanted to see in a bond would be: Clear Creek renovation, District Office renovation, etc.  As long as there is a revenue stream that will cover the annual debt payments to the LBA, the Board can finance things as it sees fit.  This is the essence of Local Control, but it also requires diligence from the people in making sure those who are elected to the Board have an understanding of what they should and shouldn't do in this arena.

By way of information, the following entities have set up LBAs.
Duchesne School District
Granite School District
Jordan School District
Morgan School District
Ogden School District
Piute School District
Sevier School District
South Sanpete School District
South Summit School District
Tooele School District
Uintah School District
Grand County

Orem Consolidation: Why You Care Even If You're Not In Orem

The Board has been considering consolidating schools in Orem (see info here).  "So What?" you might say.  "I don't live in Orem." The reason why it matters to you is because whatever we do or don't do in Orem will impact what we can or cannot do in the rest of the district.

So, here is what I'm asking.  Take a minute to look through the figures on the Orem plan.  Here is a link to the City Data that includes not just property tax, but also the amount the state provides per student.  Property tax only makes up 25% of the total amount we get in funding.  You will see that Orem brings in, on average: $6,140 per student.  But on the spending side,  Hillcrest (no Title 1 funding) spends $8,365 per student.  Geneva (Title 1*) spends $8,062.  Scera Park spends $6,235.  In contrast, Highland spends $5,416; Cedar Ridge: $5,911; Alpine: $5,119.  The district average for elementaries is $5,741.

On the website, there is a link where you can leave your feedback.  If you have suggestions as to how to keep these Orem schools structurally sound, with greater educational options for the kids in those schools and not incur additional debt, I'm all ears!  We looked at the numbers and put together our best plan, based on those numbers.  Now, we need feedback.  Do you like the plan?  How can we improve the plan?  Is there a way to accommodate the wishes of the parents in Orem and still provide for those kids in other parts of the district?  Please pass this information along to anyone in the district boundaries.  We'd love to hear your suggestions and your ideas!  Please provide feedback before the end of October.  For more information, read on!

The Orem Plan
The facts and figures of the Orem Plan can be found here.  The original Infographic was created a month or so ago.  After public comment and discussion, there have been options that are being discussed that differ.  These are the "hotspots" but as the graphic indicates, these are current considerations, meaning that nothing has been decided yet.  The board is looking at making a decision by the first November meeting.

Orem has a declining enrollment which has been going on since 1998.  Orem also has many older schools with seismic (Geneva, Hillcrest, Scera Park) and other maintenance issues. Because of these considerations, the Board has considered consolidating some of the schools, and doing boundary changes and, in some cases, a rebuild of some of the schools.  There are a few benefits to doing this consolidation. The first is to allow schools to have full grade levels and more than one or two classes per grade. This allows for teachers to work together.  It also allows for more options for specialty classes.   The second reason is so we can educate all the kids in our district in an equitable fashion.  We can only spend each dollar one time.  If we spend it in keeping older schools with declining enrollments open, that means we can't spend it on additional resources for those kids in Orem or in other parts of the district.  The overhead in opening and maintaining an elementary school is around $780,000 per year.  Two other things to keep in mind are class sizes and employees. The overall class size shouldn't increase much at all.  A Hillcrest-Scera Park combination shows a projection of between 23 - 28, depending on the grade.  And no employees will be let go.  We have so many employment needs throughout the district that any employees in the consolidated schools would simply be able to find employment in another school in the district.  As for the teachers, they could move with their class.  So, most, if not all, of the teachers who are currently at Hillcrest and Scera Park would continue to work at the consolidated school.






So, back to why you should care: wherever we spend one dollar means we can't spend it somewhere else.  That means, we can maintain and rebuild schools in Orem with 350 - 450 students (even though they were originally built for 700 or more).  If we do that, we will need to raise property taxes in a subsequent bond AND build the necessary schools in the high growth areas like Lehi, Saratoga Springs, and Eagle Mountain.

The majority of parents who responded to a survey in Geneva want to stay together.  There isn't room in any of the existing schools to keep them all together.  So it would require a rebuild of Geneva alone or an addition to or a rebuild of an existing school like Suncrest.  Hillcrest wants its school fixed and then a rebuild of Scera Park, without consolidation.  Incidentally, Scera Park parents appear to be in favor of consolidation.  If we were to consolidate and sell the Hillcrest property, then we could put that money toward the rebuild of Scera Park.  I don't remember the amounts, but it would allow for a portion of the cost to be paid outright.  The remaining amount could be taken from other parts of the budget, without waiting for a bond and without incurring debt. From a fiscal perspective, this makes the most sense.  On the flip side, rebuilding all the elementaries would require significant cost and a new bond.  A new elementary school is $16 -18 million.  That's an additional $16 million that would need to be added to a bond for EACH of those schools.  (Arguably, Hillcrest's seismic needs are less than $16 million, but they are probably close to half of that.)  So, whatever amount is necessary for Lehi and the West and on-going maintenance in the rest of the district, without consolidation, we would have a minimum of $32,000,000 more and possibly closer to $40,000,000 more to maintain these Orem schools as they are.  Additionally, the soonest any of those schools could be rebuilt (without consolidation) would be 2021, assuming the passage of a 2020 bond.  That leaves a minimum of 4 years with students in schools that have structural issues.  I'm not comfortable with either of those scenarios.  So, help us figure out what the best options are.  Make sure to fill out the Feedback form and to share it with your friends and neighbors in the district!

*Title 1 monies are federal funds that assist low income schools.  I am unsure whether these Title 1 funds are included in the chart on the website or not.  Title 1 could account for some of the increased expenses for those schools that receive Title 1 funding.

Mission Statement and Murdock Canal: Jan 3, 10, 17 Meetings

The two top issues for Board meetings this month are the Mission Statement will be addressed at the Board Retreat on Tuesday, Jan. 17.  And a resolution supporting the Murdock Canal road construction from 4800 West (Highland/Cedar Hills by Harvey Blvd) to 100 East (Alpine Hwy in Highland) will be voted on.  Board Agenda for Jan. 10 is here.

Mission Statement

The mission statement is "Educating all students to ensure the future of our democracy."  Seven years ago (yes, time flies) there were concerns about the mission statement.  The first concern is that our country is a republic, not a democracy.  (For a good video on the difference, go here or see the embedded video above.)  Democracy is a concern because it implies that the common good, as determined by the majority, outweighs the rights of the individual.  Other concerns had to do with John Goodlad, whose Moral Dimensions of Teaching, formed the basis of the mission statement in Alpine School District.  In reading Dr. Goodlad's books (The Moral Dimensions of Teaching and Developing Democratic Character in the Young), I found quite a few ideas that didn't square with my understanding of individual, unalienable rights discussed in the Constitution.  I think it is safe to say that Dr. Goodlad is focused on creating a more socialistic society in America than currently exists, and he hopes to do so through education in the youth.  I'll admit this is a very controversial situation.  But that's the point.  Our previous board had discussed finding a mission statement that would be less controversial and would appeal the the vast majority of our taxpayers and patrons.  If you have suggestions for the mission statement, you are welcome to email the board members or make public comment at any of the Board meetings.  The next meeting is tomorrow, Tuesday, Jan. 10 @ 6pm.  (You will want want to come a few minutes early to sign up.)

Murdock Canal Road

For years, a proposed East-West road has been proposed near the Murdock Canal in Highland.  Highland City is planning on building this road.  However, due to certain legal requirements and the proximity to the Utah State Developmental Center, the State Legislature must give its approval for this new development.  The City Councils of Highland City and American Fork have passed formal resolutions in support of this construction.  Cedar Hills has voiced its support for this construction project as well.  On Tuesday, Jan. 10, @ 6pm, the Alpine School Board will consider a resolution in support of this project, as well.  I, personally, am in support of this project.  Those involved want to make sure that all parties are taken care of, while allowing an East-West corridor that facilitates quicker times to AF Hospital without using SR-92.

Non-Discrimination Policy and Property Purchases

Also, a discussion about possible changes to our non-discrimination policy will be addressed, and several property purchase resolutions. To read the policy proposal and the resolutions, download the "Meeting Documents" found here.)

Summit Energy Proposal
A proposal to obtain Natural Gas through Summit Energy instead of Questar for our secondary schools is also on the agenda.  The proposal shows a significant cost savings on an annual basis.  Summit Energy presented to the Board on Jan. 3, 2017.  You can listen to the audio here.  (Additional Media->Board Meeting start around 8min in: http://board.alpineschools.org/2016/12/21/january-3-2017-board-meeting/)

Feds and Bonds: Summer Happenings

There are two items of importance for your consideration and action: ESSA public comments (the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind has a set of regulations open for public comment.  Hint: They are the textbook definition of overreach and federal control) and the proposed Bond for 2016.

The ESSA public comment period has a deadline of Monday, Aug. 1, 2016.  The bond will be voted on by the Board Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2016.

ESSA Regulations
In December, 2015, Congress passed the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), nicknamed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).  At the time, I said I was opposed to it, due to the 1 step forward, 2 steps backward attempt at 'removing' federal control in education.  I still believe ESSA to be a net negative (Yes, as bad or worse than NCLB).  However, those members of Congress who voted for it, generally, see the regulations that the US Dept of Ed have put out on ESSA to be an egregious overreach of the law, itself.  (Find the Regulations here: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html?src=essa-resources)

The biggest area of concern (and there are many) is the recommendation that schools with high opt-out rates of  Common Core testing be penalized.  See this article: http://longisland.news12.com/news/us-education-secretary-john-b-king-penalize-schools-with-high-rates-of-common-core-opt-outs-1.12031057  In June, I attended a training session on ESSA presented by the National School Boards Association (aptly titled: A New Federalism).  The presenter, an attorney, recommended that we work with our legislators to remove the ability of parents to opt their kids out of state testing.  The consequence, she said, would be to jeopardize our federal funding under ESSA.  So, the one avenue parents have to protest and to protect their students is under attack by the 'new' supposedly kinder, gentler, less-federal-encroachment law.  Additionally, I asked how they would be able to do this when some states, like Utah, for example, have opting out codified in state law, the state law predates ESSA, and under the 10th Amendment, the states would have jurisdiction in this area that the feds clearly do not.  Her response, paraphrasing, "Since the monies in ESSA are 'voluntary', you will not be able to get someone to challenge it on 10th Amendment grounds."  In short, by taking the federal monies from ESSA, we are subverting state (and natural) law--voluntarily. 

Also, the ESSA includes the 'Family Fixing Policy' as it is described by education blogger Peter Greene.  I wrote about this at the end of last year: http://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2015/12/jan-4-2016-deadline-to-support-family.html  Nothing we want taking place in our state.  The concern is that if the Feds have the ability to (which it appears they do) to force states to do what they want, then the State Board will have no options (other than rejecting federal funding) in creating their 'Family Engagement Plan'.  It will have to come very close to what the US Dept of Ed has proposed. 

Incidentally, the NSBA presenter mentioned that the regulations overseeing how Special Education students are dealt with under ESSA were, to put it bluntly, a nightmare.  She said they were not out for public comment yet, but they were on the US Dept of Ed website.  I haven't found them yet, but if you do, please let me know. 

Take Action on ESSA:
1. An organization, US PIE (US Parents Involved in Education) has as its goal the elimination of the US Department of Ed.  They have drafted a letter to send to Congress.  You may add your name by emailing afew@uspie.org and asking to be added to the letter.  Include your name and title and state.
2. Comment on the US Dept of Ed regulations BY AUGUST 1 (MONDAY)!  https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=ED-2016-OESE-0032-0001
3. Contact your members of Congress and make sure they know the Dept of Ed is over-stepping it's bounds.
4. If you like twitter, use the hashtag #ReignInTheKing and #StopFedEd

ASD 2016 Bond
The Board will vote on Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2016 on whether or not to place a bond on the ballot for your consideration in November.  This bond is proposed to be $386 Million and cover projects over the next 4 years.  There will be no projected tax increase for the average $250,000 home, due to the interest rates, project schedule, and retirement of existing bonds.  For more information on the bond, go here.  (The 2011 bond was $210 Million.)

Originally, there were many items included in the bond, like technology infrastructure and key-card-security access, but they seemed to take a back-seat to the growth and maintenance of schools.  As such, those items were removed and the proposed projects can be found here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzUjUSlTes-4TjhBQXUtQlFjdjA  I would appreciate your comments as soon as possible on these items, as there is not much chance for public feedback at this point.  You are welcome to come and comment on the 16th, but by then, it is mostly a done deal. 

Personally, while I like Clear Creek, I think we should focus our resources on more school buildings instead of Clear Creek. I believe the parents who have kids in overcrowded schools would prefer more day-to-day school buildings than the benefit of Clear Creek. Additionally, I think we could probably get funding from other sources (corporate and personal donations), to determine the exact benefit our parents find from programs like Clear Creek.  (I, personally, enjoyed Clear Creek with my daughter, but I think when it comes to prioritizing our bond projects, more schools outweighs the benefits of Clear Creek.  You may disagree, but that's why I'm asking for input.) 

My take:
I will, most likely, vote to put the bond on the ballot.  There are serious growth concerns in Lehi and the West that I can't see being able to fund in the short-term without bonding.  Our district has a great track record of keeping its promises on bonds, getting the best interest rates, and keeping tax rates low.  So, if you must use a bonding model, I think Alpine School District and our Business Services Department do a great job!

However, in the Highland, Alpine, and Cedar Hills area, bonding is probably not a logical choice.  We have a few minor items that are included in every bond, but we are essentially paying for building and maintenance in the other areas across the district.  (For Alpine/Highland/Cedar Hills: 2011 bond: 1% of the bond.  2016 proposed bond: 1% of the bond.)  I've been told that not wanting to pay for others' buildings is selfish.  But, my response is simply this.  Property taxation should not expand beyond those who are receiving the benefit of the property tax; otherwise, any meaningful checks and balances on property taxation are lost.  So, like in this instance, there are enough people in the rest of the district that want/need what is being proposed on the bond they can force those in the other areas to pay for those needs.  (And I remind you I don't think those buildings are a bad thing.  They are truly needed.  It just goes back to self-sufficiency, and the need for checks and balances on government processes.) This is one of the difficulties in bonding over a large area, like our district.

The other possible downside is in the high-growth or older areas that require more building, the bond dollars have to be spread around in order to have broad support.  If you are in Lehi, it would probably take much less time to get all those buildings done because you wouldn't have to pay for Orem or AF or Eagle Mountain..., and the question is whether or not the cost to Lehi would be significantly more than spreading it over the entire district.  Since Lehi is a high growth area, arguably, the increased property values in that area might equal the increased need in buildings.  These are questions I don't have the answers to.  But they are questions we should be asking. 

So, as an example, take Highland City.  It seems every year the City Council raises taxes to fix the roads, and every year, the residents pass a referendum to prevent it.  It's the check and balance that is needed.  If residents prefer to drive on lousy roads in order to keep their property taxes low, then that is their right.  If, however, Highland residents could expand their tax base out to Alpine and Cedar Hills and make them pay for Highland's road construction, there might be less resistance from Highland residents.  But would that be right?  Property tax exists to allow residents of a particular community to tax themselves for a particular benefit.  They pay the price, but they also receive the benefit.  If you are paying more than you are receiving in benefit or vice versa, then the checks and balances are misaligned.  And you will find people voting to take money from others to pay for their needs, instead of bearing the burden themselves.  If we want to help other areas of the district, in the long term, I believe working with the legislature to do the following would be better governance than bonding across the district every 4-5 years.  (Note: these items might not eliminate bonding, but they are better models for government and the bonded amounts would be smaller and more targeted, I believe.)

1. Change the law to allow impact fees to be used for school buildings.  (Impact fees are charged to developers for things like sewer lines and water.  15 or so years ago, the legislature, when the Senate President was a realtor, banned the use of impact fees for schools.  This means we don't have a way of getting more funding to build school buildings in growth areas other than property taxation and bonding.  We don't get to plan in advance and assess monies for schools to be built as cities grow.  And the growing areas are dependent upon the rest of the district for funding/bonding, as well.  The argument against impact fees is that it increases the cost of new developments.  However, to me, that's like saying we can't charge impact fees for water because it would increase the cost.  If you are building, we are obligated to provide you with water.  If you are building, we are obligated to provide schools. Without impact fees, we are reacting to growth instead of being able to plan in advance and prepare.)

2. Remove (or reduce) 'special programs' like technology grants and so forth that limit what funding can be used for at the local level.  Special programs and state grants turn the legislature into a super school board--dictating what projects are of most value in their eyes.  If we had the chance to get money for technology or for school buildings, each district might choose differently, but that is why you have a locally-elected school board--to decide how the money should best be used.

3. Reduce or eliminate the amount of income tax money funding higher ed.  Once upon a time 100% of our income taxes went to K-12 education.  The legislature changed this to allow a portion to also go to higher ed.  Over time, the percentage going to higher ed has successively increased, and reduced K-12 by the same amount.  We are obligated under our State Constitution to provide a free, public education for all our students K-12.  We are not obligated to subsidize higher ed.  If we want to subsidize higher ed, the money should come from outside the income tax amounts and should probably be reduced.  If we can't provide places for our K-12 children to learn, but we are subsidizing higher ed, we have our priorities backward. 

Please share this information with your neighbors.  Ask them to comment on the ESSA regulations, as well as on the bond, and any proposals to deal with growth and maintenance issues going forward.  Our district can represent you, but only if you are willing to weigh in on the things that matter to you!

Money, Money, Money: Budgets and Bonds

BUDGET HEARING TODAY
Today, June 21, 2016, is our annual budget hearing at 6:00 pm at the district office in American Fork.  A public hearing will take place for 1) the final budget for 2015-2016 and 2) the proposed budget for 2016-2017.  Most of the time, very few people come to comment on the budget unless there is a tax increase proposed.  But if you have comments about the budget, you can comment at the appropriate time.  If you have comments on other issues, there will be a public comment period at the beginning of the meeting, as well.  Here is a link to the budget: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4LZ8teFSo0fNUd1WEVYZzZRekFLQ1JSQ3hQWXU2U1BlSUZj/view

A few things to note:
p. 8: Great Graph on 1) Where the money comes from and 2) How it is spent.  Total federal funding this year is 6.32% ($39 million total federal revenues)
p. 15: General Fund: This is where most of the 'school-related' activities are funded: teachers, principals, etc.
p.23: District Leadership: The board and other district leadership have their association dues paid for by you.  The vast majority of this total amount ($57,999) is for dues for the Board's Utah School Boards' Association. (Note: Only teachers do not have their dues paid for by the taxpayers.)
p. 23: District Leadership Supplies and Materials: This amount is significantly higher than last year because we will be including the Superintendent's discretionary spending fund (for items that arise during the year that only he can approve) here for greater transparency. 
p. 39: Nutrition Services: This is where a huge chunk of our federal revenues come in.  51.74%  ($11.472 million) of our food budget is federal.  Note also, this pays for the free school lunches in the summer, as well.
p. 51: Tax Increment Fund (RDA's): This is the amount of taxation that is being diverted to developers under the RDA sections of state code, to incentivize development in exchange for reduced tax rates to those entities that can successfully lobby us to give them tax breaks.  This is a new requirement from the State Auditor's office.  This year, $15 million is projected to be given back to developers.
p. 57: Alpine self-insures for medical workers' compensation.  This outlines the spending and revenues for that program. 

Non-budget items that may be of interest:
p. 66: Enrollment projections through 2020 (hint: 80,885 students by 2020)
p. 71: Actual employee counts, per department, over the last several years.
p. 73: New employee counts for this year specifically.

BOND DISCUSSION--JUNE 27 @ 12:00pm
Additionally, on June 27 @ 12:00 pm at the District Office, the Board will meet to discuss the various bond projects that we would like to see on the upcoming bond.  The vote on the bond will take place at the August board meeting.  If you have bond projects that you support, want to see included, or want to see removed, please let me (and the rest of the board) know before the 27th.  This is the time to weigh in.  If you wait till August on your opinion of the bond, it will be too late, in all practicality, to influence it.

TECHNOLOGY and BONDING
My personal opinion is we should not include technology infrastructure in the bond.  Most infrastructure for technology has a short 'useful life' and should not be financed over 17 - 20 years.  It was included, in part, because the bond survey indicated a strong preference for increased use of technology, especially from our male respondents. We have put the cart way before the horse in thinking technology is the silver bullet of education. We are not fully aware of the vast implications of so much technology use in our children's lives. 

As an example, here is an article that every parent needs to read. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201508/screentime-is-making-kids-moody-crazy-and-lazy?utm_source=FacebookPost&utm_medium=FBPost&utm_campaign=FBPost)  The American Academy of Pediatrics advises no more than 2 hours per day of screen time for kids up to age 18.  I think technology can be useful in some circumstances, but it is by no means the end-all, be-all of improving education and our children's lives.  And, in fact, might be harmful, depending, as always, on its use.

And one more about how we are creating children who can't disagree. (http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/02/bill-gates-admits-on-education-tech-we-really-havent-changed-outcomes/) “The digital delivery of teaching materials across Australia has had a powerful normative effect,” he [Dr. John Vallance, Headmaster, Sydney Grammar School] observed. “It’s making it quite difficult for children to learn how to disagree, how not to toe the party line, because they can’t question things – the possibility of questioning things has been taken away from them.”
Please share this information with your friends and neighbors.  We are only 7 board members, and we need your input on how you would like to see our district managed.

A Thankful Heart Is the Greatest Virtue: Informed and Involved

'A thankful heart is not only the greatest virtue, but the parent of all other virtues.' --Cicero

I want to start by thanking all of you for your support throughout these past 6 years for the principles that I have tried to stand for.  It was especially felt during this past legislative session with the numbers of calls, texts, and emails that were sent to our legislators.  I am grateful to all of our legislators, even those I vehemently disagree with, for taking the many hours of time and energy and the mocks and scorns of the populace that they are oath-bound to represent.  But I am even more grateful to you, the many moms and dads, everyday people, who are willing to take a little time out of your day to defend the family, protect parents' rights, and demand that parents and teacher decide what knowledge is of most worth.

I am writing to once again enlist your aid: To Run for Public Office or to Support Another Who Shares Your Principles.  You can FILE to run up to THIS THURSDAY, March 17, at the County Elections Office (in Utah County, that's in Provo).

The point of running for office is about the principles that you are willing to stand up and defend. Do you want to defend the family?  Do you want to defend individual freedom?  Do you want to support parents and teachers deciding what knowledge is of most worth to pass along to our children?  If so, you qualify.  The goal of a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' is that the people are the ones who are involved, overseeing it and running it.  If you haven't served as a state or county delegate, if you haven't attended a caucus meeting, if you haven't filed to run for office, think seriously about doing so.  You are who we need in the country, not those who seek office for power or glory, but who seek it to maintain freedom and liberty.  

FIRST, for school board.  Abraham Lincoln said, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation is the philosophy of the government in the next."  I would argue that who is elected to Local and State School Board positions could have a greater impact on the direction of our country than the president.  (And as the Founders understood it, it really should.)

Alpine School District, ASD4 (PG/Lindon), ASD6 (Lehi), ASD7 (East Orem).  The only incumbent seeking re-election is Scott Carlson in ASD6.  I do not believe that any office should go uncontested, and certainly, any office where those running do not share the vast majority of your principles.  If you have ever thought, "Why don't we have anyone I like running for office", that is a call to arms.  You should be running.

In our predominantly LDS culture, we are used to taking upon ourselves leadership responsibilities and rotating that responsibility around to different members of the ward family.  In a similar manner, our Founders felt that public office should be rotated around to the different community members as a sense of civic obligation and personal duty.  It was assumed that most people would be willing and able to serve 2 - 4 year terms, and then return home to their families, their farms, and their livelihoods. Politics was never supposed to be a professional occupation.  And if you've ever wondered about why we are headed in the direction that we are, I would emphatically argue it is BECAUSE average people don't run for public office.  Many years ago, William F. Buckley, paraphrasing, said that he'd rather be governed by the first 535 names in the New York Phonebook than by the members of Congress. And yet, THAT is exactly what our Founders envisioned: everday people, representing their neighbors, their families, and their friends.

Opportunities for public service are just that, opportunities for service.  Here are several that I would ask you to seriously consider.

1. Attend your party's caucus meeting on March 22.  (An excellent article on the caucus is here.)

2.Vote in the Presidential Preference Poll (this IS the presidential primary for Utah).
3. Run for State or County delegate at your precinct or support someone who shares your principles.
4. Run for Public Office yourself, unless you find someone who shares your principles.  Then campaign on their behalf.  (Money is good, but time is better.)

Some Public Offices that are up for election this year. For more information, go here.

Local:
ASD 4, 6, and 7: If you are in one of those areas, think seriously about running for office.

County:
State Senator
State House
Utah County Commission, Seat C


State:
State School Board (My specific area is not up, but half the State Board seats are.  In UT County: 11, 12, and 13)
State Attorney General
State Auditor
State Treasurer
Governor/Lt. Governor

Federal:
US House of Representatives (all seats)
US Senate (1 seat)
President/Vice-President

Most people are unaware that every two years 100% of the US House of Representatives and 33% of the US Senate are up for election.

In Utah, 100% of the State House of Representatives and 50% of the State Senate are up for election.

We, the People, have the opportunity to completely change the direction things are going every two years, or to reinforce what is being done.  And sometimes we reinforce it by our apathy.

Informed and Involved is the only way to maintain freedom.  And it isn't once every four years by voting for president.  The most important elections are those closest to you!  It is our responsibility to be informed and then to be involved.

Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,.. it expects what never was and never will be.  If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."

2015 Community Meetings and Attendance Follow-up

Two Issues:

1. 2015 Community Meetings
2. Follow-up from Oct. 27, 2015 Attendance Discussion with Judge Bazelle

2015 Community Meetings
District personnel will be holding community meetings at every school in the district over the next month.  The purpose is to provide information about the projects that were part of the 2011 bond.  Where we are, and what was done.  It is also to provide information about our growth situation and to provide the community information about how we plan to address those needs.  One of the options would be a bond next year.  The board has not yet decided on a direction, but this is a good opportunity to see what the concerns are, and to voice your opinion on these issues.

In my area, two of the schools, Ridgeline and Highland, have already had their meetings.  The rest are as follows. 

Thursday, Oct. 29, 10:00 am: Lone Peak HS
Thursday, Oct. 29, 1:30 pm: Mountain Ridge JH
Thursday, Oct. 29, 1:30 pm: Timberline Middle
Thursday, Nov. 5, 1:30 pm: Deerfield Elementary
Friday, Nov. 6, 10:00 am: Cedar Ridge Elementary
Thursday, Nov. 19, 10:00 am: Westfield Elementary
Thursday, Nov. 24, 10:00 am: Alpine Elementary

Here is a link to all the meetings taking place in the district.  Feel free to attend whichever one is the most convenient for you.  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzUjUSlTes-4QlZEV1dHZ2xYc0k/view?usp=sharing  I ask that you share this information on the community meetings with at least 5 of your neighbors. 

To provide follow-up on the meeting, please use this link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pqI5BzSttELzPm0dED0frhCltcf05U5H1AWr75bc48M/viewform

Attendance Policy Follow-up
Quite a few people showed up for the Study Session last Tuesday for the discussion with Judge Bazelle about our Attendance Policy.  We had 9 people comment in the public comment portion of the Board Meeting, 7 of those specifically on the current Attendance Policy. But all commenters, including those who came about the Cherry Hill ALL program, were in support of keeping our current attendance policy as it is.  I appreciated all the comments from my fellow board members about keeping parents in charge.  The Judge also said that it has been shown that the Judicial system should be the path of last resort because those that can be helped out prior to getting into that system are better off.  She would prefer that the schools work through a non-judicial process for helping any children that might need it. 

It is important to note that the Obama Administration has an attendance initiative.  And a lobbying organization, Attendance Works, regularly lobbies the state legislature to pass laws tracking chronic absenteeism, not just truancy.  It is important to keep this in mind and to follow these developments.  I greatly appreciated the comments last evening because it will help our Board should we need to weigh in on any proposed attendance legislation come from the State or the Feds. 

One final note on attendance, most studies either do not include parent-excused absences or they don't separate them out to see whether there is any difference between parent-excused absences and truancy on academic outcome.  Of the three studies that I have found that do delineate between excused absences and truancy, there was not any correlation between excused absences and performance.  None!  In fact, one study said they couldn't tell whether the academic performance drove the absence or the absence drove the academic performance.  In short, if a parent is excusing their kids, there is no risk, despite what you are hearing.  Please confirm this for anyone who is concerned that there is no difference.  There is no difference for the majority of the studies because they failed to track excused absences separately from truancy. 

Attendance Policy

This Tuesday, Oct. 27 @ Deerfield Elementary (4353 West Harvey Blvd, Cedar Hills), the Board Study Session will include a discussion with Juvenile Court Judge Bazelle about the current attendance policy.  The Study Session begins at 4:00pm, and the Judge will be there at 4:30 pm.

The regular board meeting with public comment will take place at 6:00 pm.

Why should you care?  One major issue that keeps coming up from parents and taxpayers is attendance.  I have had many complaints about the strictness of our former policies, and the inconsistencies of the application of our current policy.  Some parents have sent their kids to a different school specifically because of the harshness of some of the attendance policies.  I have not had anyone complain that our attendance policies are too lax...until now.

State Law allows certain things as valid excuses: illness, death in the family, etc.  It also allows "any other excuse established as valid by a local school board, local charter board, or school district."  In our district, our policy says, "The Alpine School District Board of Education has determined that the parent or legal guardian of a student can excuse an absence for reasons they deem necessary."

At our board meeting on Sep. 22, Board Member Taylor reported that in a meeting with Judge Noonan (who oversees that Orem area), concerns were raised that our policy is working great for about 95% of our students, but there are 5% that they can't help because our policy is too lenient.  (To listen to the audio, go to http://board.alpineschools.org/2015/09/18/september-22-2015-board-meeting/, click on 'Additional Media', and the second audio file is the Board Meeting.  The report begins about 1 hour into the meeting.)

While I have found that our district policy is not being implemented as stated, that is more of an internal issue.  However, at the end of the day, we passed the attendance policy in order to support parental rights.  We do no one a service when we try to insert ourselves into the realm of the family, prematurely, where we actually do not belong. 

In other states where there has been no distinguishing between excused absences and truancy, many children have become 'collateral damage' to a system that is hoping to make sure that increased attendance is the ultimate good. But how many innocent parents and children will be harmed in the process?   http://www.nebraskafamilyforum.org/2011/12/chambers-family-in-bed-sick-at-school.html

The question I have is whether we can find a non-judicial way to help those families that may need that help, without jeopardizing the rights of the rest of our families.  Those who find themselves in extreme circumstances do not need the added concern of the County Attorney looking for reasons why they are unfit, if the only indicator is attendance.  Attendance alone, if excused by parents, is insufficient to predict negative consequences for kids in school or later life (current internet talking points notwithstanding.) 

At the end of the day, how many good families and how many parental rights are we willing to sacrifice?  Do we start with the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, unless they have children in our school system?  I think the same standard needs to apply.  Can you imagine the pain and heartache in your family if you were threatened with the loss of custody of a child?  Do you believe that only the 'bad parents' are possibly at risk? The evidence shows otherwise.

Justice Dallin H. Oaks, ruled, "Family autonomy helps to assure the diversity characteristic of a free society.  There is no surer way to preserve pluralism than to allow parents maximum latitude in rearing their own children."

Parents have the fundamental right to manage their children, including their education. Until that parent has violated that trust (and it has been proven, with evidence), the state does not get 'veto' power over parents.  The laws come from We, the People, not The State.  We either value parental rights and support them, or we subject ourselves to the power of the State.  This is an important discussion for us to have.  Please join me on Tuesday!

Why Have a School Board? Taxation without Representation

What my opponent got wrong. 

From her post:

What would our school district look like if my opponent’s votes had the support of the majority of the School Board?

Monthly bills would have gone unpaid more than 30 months in the 4 years she has served.

The Board, by law, receives a report on a monthly basis of what HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID.  Four school districts in the state do not take any formal action on the claims.  My substitute motions were always to 'accept' the claims instead of 'approving' them.  I can accept them, but I don't have enough information to approve them.  After two years, with two new board members, we now accept the claims.  I have voted 'yes' on all 'acceptance' of the claims.  I will never vote to approve something that I cannot personally stand behind and support.

No annual budgets would have been approved, so maintenance and operation funds would not be approved to be used by schools.

Annual budgets must be approved by June 22 of every year.  A budget would have been approved, but if the majority had agreed with me, we wouldn't have spent $75,000 for a party or nearly $42,000 of your money on dues for the Board and Superintendent.  Instead, we would have had more teachers and/or aides in the classroom, a lower tax rate, and discussions of important budget issues by board members BEFORE the money is allocated.

We would not have had the financial ability to accommodate growth, so class sizes would have been even larger.

This might reference the 2013-14 budget where I voted against a tax rate increase and against a salary increase for our Superintendent and our Business Administrator.  It's wrong to ask the people for more money in taxes and then pay your top administrators more.  I suggested that the Board pay the Superintendent and the Business Administrator a modest increase out of our own salaries. 

Taxes on our local residents would have to be raised to compensate for withdrawal from ANY Federal funding.

Many Federal programs cost so much to implement that there isn't a benefit.  I have never moved to get away from ANY Federal funding. Federal Special Education funds, in particular, are severely constrained by federal strings, impacting our ability to 'plug holes'.  When the federal strings impacts our kids, it's important to look at what our options are.  I have supported requests asking for an analysis of the costs vs. benefits of our different federal programs.  Our federal strings give us 6% of our budget, but control a lot more than 6% of what we do.  We need to know if the benefit of the funding is worth the cost of the strings. 

Our schools would be subjected to the federal No Child Left Behind standards and labeled as failing.

Under No Child Left Behind, all schools are failing this year.  That's not anyone's fault but Congress'.  The waiver magnanimously provided by the US Dept of Education included 'assurances' that violate No Child Left Behind.  I supported the Waiver submitted by our State Board of Education that is allowing us to get out from under the egregious penalties of No Child Left Behind and still retain our state's control over education, as legally REQUIRED under No Child Left Behind.

Extracurricular activities that serve students and address their needs would be limited to ONLY what the school board wants to offer.

If a club is illegal under state law, it is the duty of the local school board to limit or deny that club.  I asked that the Board, not just our administration, consult with legal counsel.  If the majority had agreed, we would have been able to go forward knowing, legally, where we stood, instead of hoping that someone doesn't sue us.

Benefits for teachers would be reduced or eliminated

I have never voted to reduce or eliminate benefits for teachers and I never would. I have supported every single salary increase or bonus given to teachers. 

If the Board isn't supposed to weigh in and represent the various views of the community on these many issues, then why have a school board at all?  I support public education.  I support the public, not just funding education, but having a say in what that education looks like through their local board members.  Otherwise, a board, rubber stamping whatever is proposed, is just taxation without representation.

Sources:
Utah Law: Duties of a Business Administrator
http://www.le.utah.gov/code/TITLE53A/htm/53A03_030300.htm
By contrast, I have found nothing in the duties of the school board that say we have to approve all of these expenses that have already conformed to our policies.

Claims discussion:
http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1020
(download the study session audio file)

2014 Budget Discussion:
http://board.alpineschools.org/2014/06/04/june-17-2014-board-meeting/
(Scroll down to additional media, listen to the Board meeting, my motion is at 47 min in)

No Child Left Behind
http://www.nochildleftbehind.com/nclb-law-contents.html
See Sec. 9401: Waivers (who can do them and what is required)
and Sec. 9527: Prohibitions on Federal Government...

My letter to the  Utah State School Board on the NCLB Waiver
http://www.wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2014/08/nclb-waiver-letter-to-state-board.html

Utah Law: School Clubs
http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE53A/htm/53A11_120600.htm

2014 School Clubs motion for legal counsel
http://board.alpineschools.org/2014/10/09/october-14-2014-board-meeting/
(Scroll down to additional media, listen to the Board meeting, beginning at 16 min, 50 sec)

"Well, At least, you're consistent!": University Place CDA, Your tax dollars at work

"Well, at least you're consistent!" 

We are talking about the University Place (CDA--Commercial Development Agency) in Orem. The plan is to take $63 million in future property taxes, $44 million of it from Alpine School District, and allow the developer to reinvest that money into infrastructure. The largest property owner in the City of Orem will get a $63 million tax break. If we were to give this amount in tax breaks to every business in Orem, that would be about $25,000 per business.   

Even though, this is legal, I believe it is wrong for several reasons.  And, "at least, I'm consistent!"

My fellow board member Paula Hill has an excellent commentary on this issue.  I concur!

I am reading comments about the Orem Mall (newly minted as “University Place”). I would like to explain the pros, and then give my take as to why they are wrong.

Alpine District currently receives $1,123,000 a year in property tax from the existing mall. The tax incentive plan proposes to give ASD either 25% or 50% (both have been discussed) of all property tax increase, leaving the original $1.1 million still coming in to the district. The incentive is only for the infrastructure, as ASD does not participate in residential or commercial properties. There is no “giving” of district money to anyone, any way.

This is not a backroom deal made by smarmy “suits” determined to rob the public of their fair share. These are conclusions drawn by fine administrators with good business sense. It appears to be a win-win: the incentive helps the business grow, and even though we get a small part, a small part of a lot is better than all of nothing. And of course in twenty years, we get the whole she-bang.

These are the flaws I see in the reasoning.
1. It is economic engineering, human beings peering into the next twenty years and making informed guesses, but guesses just the same.

2. It is based on false principles—the correct economic principle being allowing the free market to function, well, freely.

3. It violates two of the items on the ASD criterion for CDA’s (or RDA’s, or whatever initials we come up with)

• We do not move money around the district. At the Orem City Council meeting, where all the Good Old Boys were explaining to us obtuse citizens, there was a lot of talk about competing with “up north,” occasionally even citing specifically Lehi’s attracting businesses. The outline at the Board discussion listed bringing out-of-state money, but the reality is there was a lot of fuss about the north end of the county. So, as a government entity we are picking winners and losers
• We ask the unanswerable question (and guess at the answer), “Would the business go without us?” The feeling expressed was that it probably would, but not as quickly, therefore we would not get even our smaller share of property tax valuation as fast. But a cruise around the current mall shows the older area under busy construction all over the place, and the newer areas, including Costco, the theater, etc., are bustling already. Orem City website is continuously welcoming new merchants. The mall is already going without us.

There are other plans out there that are not being considered. Some Orem citizens don’t want a “walkable” town, with a high concentration of glitz and glitter in one area and essentially down-grading all other shopping. The talk was of the “halo effect” that would benefit State Street, etc., but one comment on why we were helping retail to grow in one area at the expense of others was that, well, those other stores could move to the mall too. At a city planning session (charette is the new buzz word) three of four citizen groups identified Orem City’s downtown as Center Street and State Street. Yet the planners hijacked the consensus and claimed the mall as the center of town.

Our discussion at the September 9 Board meeting included, “What do we have to lose?” meaning would we rather have a small piece of the cake or no cake at all? My response was that I am not a gambler, especially with the tax-payers’ money, but since we have to make a call I am going with the principle of the free market knowing what is best. I choose 100% of the property tax growth free enterprise will engineer, all on its own, versus one-half to one-fourth of what the “suits” are declaring we will get. It is not that I do not see the value to the district as well as to the community of the revitalization of Orem, it is that I do not believe there is a right way to do the wrong thing. And the tax incentive for University Place is the wrong thing.
 

What I'm Supposed to Say and What I'm Not Supposed to Say

What I'm Supposed to Say

On Oct. 8, the Will of the Board supported approving approximately 80 clubs in our Senior High Schools.  Each of the clubs had followed the rules outlined in our board policy.  The board policy on clubs was reviewed just this year (not by the full board, but by a committee).  Our job, as board members, is to make sure our policy is complied with.  The Board approved all the clubs.  It is not rubber-stamping to approve the paperwork of all clubs that complied with our policy. 

I can appreciate that you might have some concerns about some of the clubs or else the process, but the board has a policy, and it was followed.  The Will of the Board is that we go forward and we support these clubs and the decision of the Will of the Board.

How did I vote?  What's important is the Will of the Board has been made known.  We had vigorous discussions and then a vote was taken.  Now is the time to be supportive of the direction the Board has taken.  If we were to have well-known differences of opinion on issues, then we would not be a support to our district, and our employees would not be directed properly knowing there might be some differences of opinion.  As such, highly-effective boards debate and discuss, and then go forward in full support of the Will of the Board.

That is what I'm supposed to tell you.  That is what I have been trained and lectured to tell you. That is the acceptable thing to say.  And I should not elaborate further.  I certainly shouldn't put what I'm about to write on a blog or a facebook post.  If you felt the need to know more, you could check out the audio and the minutes of the past board meetings, if you knew they existed and where to find them.

What I'm NOT Supposed to Say

I voted against the clubs.  You may agree; you may disagree.  But, now you know.  I have lots of reasons why.  So, rather than tell you how we all need to support the Will of the Board, I will let you know what my main concern is: lack of representation. 

Most people believe their elected officials are elected to represent them.  Most people think that 'board approval' implies the board members looked at individual clubs and applications and thought, "Gee, that's a good idea.  Let's do that!"  That's what approval means.  Most people think there will be disagreements on a board, and that a majority will win.  As a result, the minority will lose.  But, to be transparent, even the Supreme Court issues majority and minority opinions.  Our Board is not supposed to do that. 

The reality is "board approval" means we rubber-stamped the paperwork required by our policy.  The students and faculty sponsor(s) jumped through the appropriate hoops, and we "approved" their hoop-jumping.  Our approval was not based on merit, debate, or community values.  Our approval was a foregone conclusion, a mere formality. 

I believe the Board is elected to represent you, the taxpayers of this community.  I also don't see a single, homogenous group of people with unified beliefs on every issue.  As such, you are better represented by a diversity of opinions, ideas, and issues.  It is assumed that anything voted on by the board requires community/public approval.  We are approving on your behalf.  If we just rubber-stamp, we only pretend there is "taxpayer" approval. 

As parents, you need to be aware that just because a club is "approved" for the school, you should not lower your guard on any level.  Please understand, the board has no role in vetting or whittling down applicants.  It doesn't matter if the reason is the threat of a lawsuit, questionable charter activities, or anything else.  If the board doesn't have the option to vett anything, we should not be voting on it, period. 

I was told we couldn't look at each club individually, on the merits.  If we were to pick and choose, we could be sued for discrimination. I have been involved in situations where I was told one thing relative to legal counsel, and then found out, with greater research and citizen involvement, the reality was quite different.  Because of this experience, I requested legal counsel meet with the Board.  That request was denied, but the administration spoke with legal counsel instead. 

Who Is In Charge? 

This denial goes to the heart of the matter.  What is the role of the school board?  Is the Board there to represent the public's will to the district or does the board represent the district's policy to the public?  Of course, politicians would skirt the issue saying it's not a mutually-exclusive question.  A balance of the two approaches is helpful with an emphasis on one or the other, depending on circumstances.  But which method is most important and why?

I believe the board should represent the will of the people, even if that goes against the will of the government administrators. We create the system and direct government to work on our behalf.  I believe we should have a trust-but-verify relationship.  This is not to say that we don't hire good people.  We do.  But the role of the board is oversight, and verification of that trust.  To trust, without formal verification, is not the role of the Board.

In the example of approving clubs, I recognize our administrators have addressed similar issues in the past, and, with renewed conversations with attorneys, felt they had a good handle on things on their end.  My fellow Board members, apparently, felt their issues were resolved, based on district administration directives.  But for me, the verification issue comes with my ability to field the questions you, the public, might have.  The questions I would ask are not the same as those our administrators or even my fellow board members would ask.  You should be represented by the various questions and perspectives of the entire board, not just the majority. 

So, you must decide what the school board's role should be.  This is your school district.   How much representation do you want?  How much oversight should the Board exercise?  Yes, the district will function smoothly if the Board is supportive of everything the administrators do. But sometimes the best system comes with debate and resolution, give and take, and it isn't always smooth. I believe the best possible public education system is achieved when the foundation is built on involved, informed citizens, not smooth-operating government administration.

Without the benefit of legal counsel, I came to our meeting feeling we were being held hostage with the threat of a lawsuit.  In short, we must accept ANYTHING that is placed in front of us.  I still don't know if the board could have rejected some of the applications, based on state law, or requested amendments to them.  But, in the spirit of transparency, here were some of my additional concerns.

1) Should a board approve a club charter that states it will report school or district policy concerns to a third party, such as the ACLU?  Are we really comfortable approving a club that, by my read, may essentially be looking for ways to sue the school or the district?  I certainly want all legitimate issues brought to the appropriate parties on a school or district-level.  But are we legally obligated to empower a club to set us up for lawsuits?

2) I am concerned about approving a club that might pose harm or a health risk for some students.  In speaking with a First Responder in suicide cases as well as a medical doctor, I have been warned that some discussions of suicide lead to more harm than good.  It is a very difficult subject to tackle without the appropriate training.  Mentioning suicide in the club application requires a much more thorough vetting, in my opinion.  What will be discussed?  Who will be overseeing and directing the discussion?  What is their certification?  How much, if any, time will be devoted to this topic?  Even though, it's an important topic, I am not comfortable without greater assurances that we are following the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm."  If I can't assume no harm will come to our students, I can't approve it. 

3) Breaking state law, by allowing students without a signed parental-consent form to attend club meetings, was another issue.  It was expressed that hopefully this discrepancy would be resolved by the club members. 

A system produces exactly what it's designed to produce.  If you don't like the idea of your elected "representatives" rubber stamping administrative decisions, you have the power to change it.  You need to ask the people who represent you to not be afraid to do so, no matter the consequences.  This is either representative government or it is a rubber stamp. Don't fall for political double talk about it being both. Ultimately every school board election is about who is in charge. If the people do not assert their rightful dominance with proactive, transparent representatives, the void is filled by well-meaning, smooth-operating government administrators.  You get to decide which it will be.