The rather incoherent and poorly written defeasement defense documents are available at the district website. Considering that the defeasement was approved January 30 and actually done in February, the documents are available on a timetable similar to the meeting minutes.
Also available is the proposed 2008-2009 budget.
Here's the district's strategery plan too.
Discussion?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The "defease defense" documents would be laughable if ... no, actually they're laughable under any circumstances.
If I'm following this correctly, Board Treasurer Gloria Heater put together a rambling, stream-of-consciousness mess of questions to Hellmann about the defeasement. Unfortunately, it's dated 3/26/08, a mere 56 days AFTER she and her colleagues voted to defease. Perhaps she's feeling a little guilty about voting for something 2 months earlier without knowing the financial ramifications. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, but it's good to know she may actually have a conscience - unless it's just for show, given all the "screaming" she's been hearing about the defeasement costs. I don't recall any actual screaming, at least not in public. What I do recall is people not so much speaking against defeasement as asking the board to do its homework and lay out the info/costs first in a coherent manner, both to board members and the public. This still hasn't been done, and Gloria's rambling questions attest to this. Even Hellmann admitted at the 3/26 board meeting that he/they rushed into this defeasement.
I'm not a CPA, but I'm hoping someone with more financial/accounting background than I have can pick apart these rosy defeasement claims. Generally, I see a lot of intellectual dishonesty in claiming "savings" from this defeasement, as well as in trying to pin greater defeasement costs on the prior board for not defeasing immediately after the 5/15/07 primary election. To believe the latter, you'd have to believe that the prior board was powerful enough to control U.S. interest rates between then and now.
It would seem that the light is starting to shine brightly in some parts of Morrisville!
Here's the problem. Hellmann is correct to say we would have saved more (lost less?) if we had defeased in May, somewhat less in November and somewhat less than that when they voted to defease. And if it were done now it would have cost us even more. So, they come across (to some) looking like financial geniuses because the interest rates cooperated with their way of thinking.
But what if the interest rates had gone the other way and the cost to defease was cheaper and cheaper as time goes on? And at some time this will happen. Would they consider themselves less savvy? I doubt it.
And of course, none of this would have happened if the prior board had just ignored the buildings like they plan to do.
And for the disbelievers in the audience, yes, they are going to ignore the buildings. I realize they just voted to fix some things in the MSHS. And all of those things do need to be done. But fixing some things in one building is NOT the same as addressing the problems with a cohesive plan.
OK, so we hear a lot about having a plan. But what does that mean exactly? Glad you asked. I know I am simplifying but, to me, that means:
1- Get an accredited feasibility study. We've been down this path several times but, like dairy products, feasibility studies have an expiration date so that our metaphorical milk doesn't smell and get lumpy. Also, if we want the state to chip in, we have to follow their guidelines. So, Bill, get the feasibility study.
2- Assess the urgency of each problem.
3- Address the immediate safety issues. No questions. This is what the Capital Reserve is for, what's left of it anyway. (Jump to #7)
4- Prioritize the remaining issues.
5- Set a time line to address all issues, keeping in mind that the kids still need to use the buildings, so some issues may be required to be done during the summer months, over-night, etc.
6- Set the budget. This includes the total cost, cash-flow, and the tax implications.
7- Get bids, making clear that there are financial penalties to missing deadlines, etc. Refine the requirements and re-bid, if necessary.
8- Raise the funds.
9- Get it done. Award the contracts. Present to the public monthly reports and true-up of the time line, as necessary. Inspect what you expect. Hold contractors financially responsible to meet agreed upon deliverables.
The important things to remember are to inform the public every step of the way, operate with complete transparency, no hidden agendas, and to follow Plan Con to the letter so that we receive as much funding as possible. Lastly, remember we need to renovate our schools because our town refuses to build a new one.
Hellmann's mistake, IMHO, is that he chose to do #6 and then #3 and has no intention of doing the rest.
Bill, please fix our lumpy milk.
My concern is this............
WE DIDN'T NEED TO DEFEASE! The bonds had a 10-year call date. In 10 years we coul dhave given the money back and it wouldn't have cost us a penny. Instead he blew $2.4 million to do it now. The interest made on having the money in the bank would have paid for the payments on bond so the could still have kept their promise of lowering the taxes and stopping the school. The reason he didn't do this is because a new Board oculd be elected before the 10 years is up (really 8 at years at this point) and they may chosen to actually build the school.....and the money would have been there to do so. He was a big supporter of democracy making the decision when he was elected, but he had no desire to allow democracy to have another go at it. He got what he wanted and he did what he had to do to make sure that democracy didn't get another go around.
Post a Comment