Oley Concerned Citizens

Taxpayers Bailout $waption Gamble

2011-11-19T08:52:00.003-05:00

In 2004, the board majority voted to enter into a derivative with Wachovia Bank called a swaption. Some citizens attending the meeting and one board member familiar with intricate financial arrangements were against the motion.
Financial derivatives are the instruments that banks concocted that ultimately brought this country to its economic knees. In 2010, the Pennsylvania Auditor General called for the ban of swaps.
The swaption involved the district paying a fixed rate to the bank while receiving a variable rate of return. In addition, the bank gave $819,000 as an inducement. The deal would end in February 2012.
The board gambled that in 2012, the variable interest rate would near the same as the fixed rate and that the value of the option would be one in which they could afford to buy out if they choose.
For those who follow market fluctuations, it is nearly impossible to predict what rates and options will be in six months much less in eight years.
The roll of the dice turned into a $6,000,000 bill for the taxpayer. $6,000,000 is the cost to buy out the option before it expires in February 2012. Otherwise, the bank will exercise the option, and the district will be forced into paying 5.03% interest on millions of debt until 2028.
The current board is left to scramble on how to pay this potential bill and not raise the current debt service of the district.
If they choose to participate in another swaption to mitigate the damage, they would be kicking the can down the road.
Bottom line, at some point, the community will be bailing out a gamble that should not have happened in the first place.
Add this to the $500,000 legal expense and the $2,400,000 judgment against the district for an unpaid bill to a contractor for the Middle School, and it calls for sitting board directors who voted for these debacles to step down.
We cannot afford the same people to continue to make the same mistakes.

The OVSD 2011-2012 Budget

2011-06-30T11:35:00.002-04:00

The board voted 8 to 1 to approve the 2011-2012 budget. The total expenditures will reach $28,034,974.00. The Real Estate Tax will be 24.15 mills or $2415.00 per $100,000 of assessed value. Other taxes will be a Per Capita Tax of $5.00, a Residence Tax of $5.00 , a 1% Earned Income Tax, and a 1% Realty Transfer Tax.

The school board struggled to balance this year's budget. The administration indicates the next two years will be more difficult.

Board President Robert A. Heckman pointed the finger at Harrisburg. However, the finger should be pointed at the district. Local decisions regarding, salaries, benefits, and building construction rest in the hands of the board. The state does not mandate generous pay and benefits. Nor do they require Taj Mahal buildings or spending $1,000,000.00 to "repair a track" or $500,000.00 in legal fees defending the non payment to a contractor.

In 2012, the swaption gamble on school debt will mature. It could mean, the debt service will increase by over $100,000.00. How many programs and teachers will be laid off to cover this increase because the district speculated with finances?

Most school boards have shown they are unwilling to harness wish list spending. The state should toughen Act 1 by eliminating spending exemptions and requiring referendum votes on budgets exceeding the rate of inflation.

Political Humor in Time of Turmoil

2011-02-24T11:51:00.000-05:00

Steve Bridges is a comedian that imitates Presidents.

Steve Bridges

Preliminary 2011-2012 Budget - 7.98% Increase !

2011-01-20T09:42:00.000-05:00

The Oley Valley School District Proposed Preliminary Budget has a 1.9 Mill real increase for 2011-2012. This would increase current millage from 23.82 to 25.72 mills, a 7.98% increase. A property that is assessed at $100,000 would pay $2,572.00 in school property taxes.
Salaries and benefits are the major factors in the increase. 2010-2011 salaries of $13,605,762 will increase $273,625 to $13,879,387. Benefits of $4,900,211 will increase $431,491 to $5,331,702.
The local revenue of earned income continues the trend of declining wages. It is expected to decline 3% this year.
Federal and state revenues will also be lower.
The inflation index the state allows for millage increase is .40 mills for 2011-2012. However, the district is applying for exemptions totaling 1.50 mills.
$22,382 of that exemption is for the PSERS retirement fund reimbursement.
The issue of a budget being calculated from budget to budget figures rather than actual to budget was raised. There is a concern that using budget to budget numbers does not accurately reflect spending, especially since there have been continued significant budget surpluses over the years. These annual surpluses suggest taxes were raised too much.
A 7.98% property tax increase is excessive. The 2011-2012 budget needs to be brought in line with current economic realities. Major cuts are needed to be make the cost of education reasonable.

Commonwealth Court Rules Against OVSD

2010-12-15T11:10:00.000-05:00

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania upheld the lower court ruling that the Oley Valley School District owes Amthor Steel $2,187,089.35 for work performed on the Middle School.
The case was heard by a three judge panel, the Honorable President Judge Bonnie Leadbetter, the Honorable Judge P. Kevin Brobson, and the Honorable Senior Judge Jim Flaherty.
According to court documents, the district had three contentions. First, they did not receive a fair hearing from an arbitration panel. Second, the arbitration panel’s reward to the contractor was the result of misconduct and irregularity. Finally, there was a failure to adhere to procedural rules and a failure to rule on pending objections.
President Judge Bonnie Leadbetter, wrote a detailed opinion that concluded the district’s reasons in their petition to vacate the award to Amthor Steel was without merit.
She affirmed Amthor Steel’s lawsuit the district owes the contractor for their work.
At the onset of the construction project, the board set aside only $1,400,000 in the Capital Projects Fund to pay the company. There has been no public explanation how the nearly $700,000 shortfall will be covered.
The district has spent nearly $500,000 defending this lawsuit. The board never publicly voted on the expenditure of funds for legal expenses associated with the case. The Sunshine Law requires a public vote on all expenditures by a school district.

VOTE

2010-10-30T14:55:00.000-04:00

Vote on November 2, 2010

* Smaller Government
* Lower Taxes
* Fiscal Responsibility
* Real Employment
* Border Protection
* Constitutional Government

Oley School Board Hires Controversial Superintendent

2010-10-14T08:31:00.000-04:00

The Oley School Board decided to hire Dr. Tracy S. Shank despite making public commitments they would not do so until her legal issues had been resolved.
Dr. Tracy has been charged with giving a false report to the Stewartstown Police about details regarding her request to investigate a man she believed was following her.

The former Superintendent of the Southeastern School District interviewed for the Assistant Superintendent opening in Oley after the retirement of Dr. Stubits.

At a recent meeting, Dr. Jeffery Zackon issued a statement that the district would not hire the applicant until an investigation had been completed.

Dr. Shank has an arraignment hearing on October 29, 2010.

Board member John Bieber asserted that her legal problems did not change his mind that she was the best candidate for the position of Assistant Superintendent. Mr. Bieber who is Chairman of the Personnel Committee did not like the idea of re-interviewing job applicants, either.

Another board member, Mr. Hannum went further when he impugned the validity of the case against Dr. Shank.

Members of the audience questioned the change of heart and why there was such a rush to hire her. They were also concerned about possible financial exposure to the district if they approved her hiring before her case is adjudicated.

At the time of the vote, she had not been released from her contract from Southeastern School District.

Board members who voted for hiring were, John Bieber, Robert Cappa, Ms. Joanne Ewing, Christopher Hannum, Stephen Burns, Ms. Sherry Shultz.

Board members who voted against were: Robert Heckman, Ralph Richard, Carl Kubitz.

No Tax Increase For 2010-2011

2010-06-23T22:38:00.001-04:00

The Oley Valley School Board passed a no millage increase budget for 2010-2011. The Agenda for the board meeting Wednesday evening had been printed. It had a .29 mill increase. The millage would increase from 23.82 to 24.11 mills. If the history of the budgeting process was any indicator, it was a done deal. There would be the perfunctory vote to raise taxes.
However, when the Motion to pass the Agenda item began, and board members where asked if they had any questions or comments on the Motion, several board members took exception to the numbers presented.
Their concerns centered around the number of years where the district had six figure fund balances each year and the practice of putting four hundred thousand dollars in budget reserve for no legitimate reason. They wanted to use some of the surplus towards taxpayer relief.
After the discussion, the vote was taken on the first motion to pass a .29 mill increase. The result was four votes for the increase and four votes against the increase. Mr. Bieber, Mr. Burns, Mr. Kubitz and Ms.Shultz voted, No.
Mr. Heckman, Mr. Hannum, Mr. Richard, Ms.Ewing voted, Yes.
Since it was a tie, the motion did not pass.
After further negotiating, the board agreed to use excess funds to have a no millage increase.
A second vote was taken, and the no tax increase budget was passed.
Mr. Bieber, Mr. Burns, Mr. Kubitz, Mr. Richard, Mr. Hannum, Ms. Shultz, and Mr. Heckman voted, Yes.
Ms.Ewing voted,No.
The 2010-2011 millage will stay at 23.82 mills.

Teachers' Union Wants Taxpayer Bailout

2010-06-11T18:03:00.000-04:00

Big Government

Another Teachers Union Bailout Runs Into Spending Fatigue

Kyle Olson

The two national teachers unions thought they had it all figured out: seek a $23 billion bailout for public schools and it would result in a windfall of dues money. Nearly $19 million for the National Education Association and almost $8 million for the American Federation of Teachers by my calculation – a handsome payback for the unions’ election support.

But the trough appears to be closing just as the unions were straightening their bibs.

That, of course, is a good thing for the American taxpayers – and the kids the union purports to put first who would ultimately be stuck with the bill.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) recently failed to garner the votes necessary to attach the Keep Our Educators Working Act to a supplemental defense spending bill, but D.C. lawmakers are expected to continue to push for the legislation.

Harkin would have needed 60 votes, and the support of Republicans, to attach the fund as an amendment to the defense bill, which recently passed without the school employee bailout amendment.

“I have no Republicans who will vote for it,” Harkin told Reuters.

My guess is that he’s got a few Democrats eyeing the November election and sensing a pitchfork mentality among the voters and they wouldn’t support it, either.

Its instinct to assume the bill is to keep teachers in the classroom. But the NEA and AFT were clear in their wording: an “education jobs bill.” It’s more than just teachers. About one-third of the NEA’s members are support personnel – custodians, bus drivers and food service workers – people who have no impact on the education of a child.

Yet the unions wanted to see those jobs (and dues) saved, too.

So instead of concessions at the bargaining table, instead of sensible cost-cutting reforms or tackling pension problems boiling over in states like Illinois (the teachers union there is actually pushing for the state to borrow to cover pension obligations), the unions want the gravy train to continue running on time.

The notion that schools are broke is laughable. Schools don’t have a funding problem; they have a spending problem.

Some Michigan schools spend well over $16,000 per employee for a health insurance package that kicks money back to the teachers union. By comparison, the average state employee plan is around $12,000.

In Ohio, the Cincinnati district last year spent over $7.5 million on sick and personal leave costs – state law requires 15 sick days a year per teacher, which are bankable. Remarkably, the district wasn’t able to calculate the cost of substitutes to cover all those sick days.

And of course, you have situations like in New York City where teachers are paid to sit in a room and do nothing constructive. That was costs taxpayers $30 million a year, according to the New York Times.

It would behoove Sen. Harkin and the other bagmen for the teachers unions to get costs under control before bellying up to the slop trough and demanding more. Until that happens, expect significant voter backlash and perhaps the end of your career in just a few months.

Board Rejects Motion To Change School Hours

2010-05-19T21:31:00.001-04:00

Mr. Robert J. Cappa introduced a Motion:”to authorize the Administration to develop a plan proposal that will adjust the school day starting time for secondary students.”
If the first Motion passed, then similar Motions would be necessary for the elementary students.
Mr. Cappa stated that students who do not get enough sleep suffer socially and academically. He cited studies and articles supporting his opinion.
Board members, Stephen S. Burns and Carl J. Kubitz, Jr. had been approached by concerned parents who opposed changing school hours. They indicated the new times would conflict with work and after school monitoring of their children.
The board member chided any parent who felt they would be inconvenienced by the policy. He made a comparison to people who leave a child in a car with the motor running as they go inside a convenience store to make a purchase.
The new schedule would also require students being taken out of class for athletic events. Some BCTC students would face not having enough credits to receive a certificate.
There was no evidence presented by Mr. Cappa that the Oley Valley School District has any rampant problem with children suffering socially or academically due to the number of hours they sleep at night.
He wanted the district to spend considerable time and money to implement his plan which raised objections from another board member, Mr. John C. Bieber.
The Superintendent, Dr. Jeffrey Zackon said that the Administration did not support the motion.
By a seven to two vote, the board voted not to have the Administration formulate plans to change school hours. Mr. Christopher M. Hannum sided with Mr. Cappa.

Blog Attacks Continue

2010-05-15T21:32:00.002-04:00

For the past several months, there has a concerted effort to attack the blog with spam posts. These posts were solicitations to various sites for various purposes. The number of these assaults became so prolific, that commenting to posts had to be filtered.
The spam continued but was deleted before they appeared on the blog.
It appears that this effort to degrade the blog is not just a hacker but someone intent on shutting down taxpayer discussion on issues.
The person has broken into the oleytaxpayers e-mail account and proceeded to sent out e-mail under the Oley Concerned Citizens name.
If you received an e-mail from "Oley Concerned Citizen" telling you to go to another site, do not click the link and do not open any attachments but forward to oleytaxpayers@hotmail.com
If you continue to receive these bogus e-mails, forward these to me as well.
Our adversaries want to shut us down. It will not happen.
Steps are being taken to remedy the situation.

Gym Floor Repair Hits a Bump?

2010-03-11T07:22:00.001-05:00

In 2003, the district was not happy with a contractor, Amthor Steel, during the construction of the Middle School. Instead of resolving a dispute before any further work was performed, the district decided to proceed anyway. Because of this decision, they incurred additional, substantial expenses on the project. Seven years and approximately $400,000 in legal fees later, the Oley Valley School District is mired in a legal quagmire and owes over $2,000,000 to Amthor.
We may be facing another lawsuit. The Reading Eagle reported about broken pipes bursting and ruining the new gym floor. At the March 10, 2010 meeting, the board voted to approve a Motion to hire a contractor to perform testing of the HVAC piping in the Main and Auxiliary gyms. The Motion presumes the testing costs would be deducted from Uhrig, the original contractor. The solicitor states the contract allows them to make this deduction. However, after questioning, it appears that Uhrig may not agree with any deduction.
The solicitor was not sure if the contract calls for arbitration or civil proceedings in regards to a possible dispute.
Neither would the board discuss the total potential cost if the contractor does not agree with the test findings.
Property and Transportation Committee member, Christopher M. Hannum contends that because he estimates the cost is minimal, he does not anticipate any further issues.
Board President, Robert A. Heckman became very irritated that the public would ask questions about the Motion.
The attempts to debunk concerns are contradicted by a Motion phrase “contingent upon the Solicitor’s and Architect’s concurrence” This verbal crafting politically protects them if the cost of proceeding without agreement on liability goes well beyond vague estimates. However, it does not protect the community from wasting more tax dollars on legal fees.

Transparency Takes A Beating

2010-01-15T18:11:00.023-05:00

The Oley Valley School Board was asked questions about a court ruling the district owes $2,200,000 to a steel contractor.

For those who do not attend board meetings, the video clip shows how a school board can stonewall the public. They do not say a word and let a solicitor run interference.

Transparency does not appear to have any more currency in the Valley than it does in Washington.

Education Overhaul

2010-01-05T15:38:00.002-05:00

January 5,2010

San Francisco Chronicle

Marisa Lagos

"The California Legislature is poised to pass an education plan today that makes far-reaching changes to how public schools are governed, giving parents the power to transfer their kids out of failing schools and to force districts to overhaul bad schools.
The dramatic changes to California's education policies have been debated for months. They are intended to make the state competitive for up to $700 million in federal dollars under President Obama's $4.3 billion Race to the Top program, which promises funding to states that embrace education policies outlined by the president by a Jan. 19 application deadline. Millions more dollars may also be at stake for the financially struggling state, as the Obama administration is expected to tie future education funding to some of his Race to the Top provisions.
The most controversial elements of the plan being voted on today by both houses of the Legislature include the so-called open enrollment and parent trigger provisions, which were championed by a number of parents groups and charter school advocates but opposed by many in the education establishment, including the state's powerful teachers' union.
Under current state law, students must attend a school in the district where they live, with some exceptions. The open enrollment legislation would allow students in the 1,000 worst schools in California - as defined by their Academic Performance Index ranking - to apply to a better school anywhere in the state, including in the same district. School districts must adopt standards for accepting or rejecting transfers under this new open enrollment policy.
The parent trigger provision would allow parents to force school districts to deal with chronically failing schools by adopting one of several "reform" plans put forth by the Obama administration, including closing the school, firing the principal and up to half of the teachers, or turning the school into a charter school. At least 50 percent of parents would have to petition for the change.
'Paradigm shift'
"We think the parent trigger especially is critically important - it's not just a new policy, it's a paradigm shift, a different way of thinking about education reform," said Ben Austin, who founded the Los Angeles-based parent advocacy group Parent Revolution. "This is not about anything other than giving parents power and trusting them to do right by their kids. The system is failing ... because it's not designed to serve kids, it's designed to serve grown-ups."
Parents aren't the only ones who would be able to force a change: Under the legislation, the state's worst schools would have to embrace one of those strategies as well. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said Monday that about 800 of the state's nearly 1,700 local districts and charter schools have indicated their intent to participate in Race to the Top.
Districts that participate agree to open up all their schools to the rules; districts that choose not to participate are still subject to the rules for their low-performing schools.
The new legislation would also make a number of other changes to help bring California in line with the federal goals. The state would create a system to track students from elementary school through college to determine what is working, make a new program for credentialing math and science teachers, and allow local school districts to use test scores and other data to evaluate teachers and principals.
Delayed by politics
"These and other reforms clearly set the stage for the governor to submit a competitive application for California to bring home a coveted Race to the Top grant," Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County), said Monday.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called a special session of the Legislature in August to bring California in line with the requirements outlined by the Race to the Top. But the changes have been mired in politics, with Assembly Democrats supporting limited changes backed by the teacher's union and others. The governor threatened to veto an earlier bill by the Assembly that he said omitted the open-enrollment rule, and negotiations dragged on through December. This week, officials ultimately decided to break the open enrollment and parent trigger provisions into a separate bill from the rest of the proposed changes, though both bills are expected to pass today."

Competition for the school tax dollar is a good idea.

Pension Nightmare

2009-11-04T13:09:00.001-05:00

School taxes in Pennsylvania may soar to pay for pension promises

By Debra Erdley

TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Think your school taxes were high this year? Start saving for 2012-13.
That's when Pennsylvania property owners will pay a lot more money to cover the generous pension bump state lawmakers awarded themselves, school employees and state workers in 2001.
The money, an estimated $558 per property owner, won't build classrooms, pay teachers or buy textbooks.
And it's only part of the bill. Lawmakers will have to come up with an estimated $4 billion to cover the state's tab -- the entire employer pension contribution for state employees and half of the employer contribution for school workers.
Actuary Rick Dreyfuss, a senior fellow with the Commonwealth Foundation, calculated costs for taxpayers at every school district in Pennsylvania based on numbers supplied by the school pension system and the Department of Education.
Although the local obligations in individual districts might be slightly higher or lower because of state subsidies, taxpayers will pay for the local obligation one way or another.
Spokesmen for the pension systems don't dispute Dreyfuss' numbers.
Jeff Clay, executive director of the school pension system, has been traveling the state for 18 months warning school superintendents about the looming payment.
Jay Himes, executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials, estimates as many as 25 percent of the state's 501 school districts have saved money to help blunt the blow. But many haven't.
"There's no silver bullet," Clay tells school officials.
Unlike private employers who shed pension obligations with bankruptcies, state taxpayers are locked into paying pension obligations. The state constitution prohibits reductions to pension benefits for public employees.
Future hires could be placed under a different plan, such as a 401(k)-type plan. But Clay and Dreyfuss say that won't reduce the payments due for pensions for current payrollers.
"It's a matter of 'pay me now, or pay me later,' " Dreyfuss said.
The only option to avoid the spike is to string out payments into the future, a move akin to taking out a second mortgage for 30 years to refinance the obligations on your 10-year mortgage.
It's a frightening prospect to homeowners, economists and school officials alike.
Kathy King, 60, of McCandless was stunned to learn about it. King and her husband, Jim, 62, a telephone company lineman, are living frugally to prepare for retirement.
"I would so love to clean out Harrisburg and put in housewives and people who have to run homes and live on a budget. This spending is so out of whack, it's unreal. ... It's very hurtful. You just can't take those kind of taxes," King said.
School officials likewise are worried.
"I was in the Erie area the other day, and one school district there calculated they would have to raise taxes 14 mills on top of their 48-mill taxes to cover it. That's a 25 percent property tax hike just to cover retirement costs. I don't think the property owners will stand for it. Something absolutely has to happen," Himes said.
"It's not a pretty picture," added Brian Jensen, senior vice president of the Allegheny Conference on Community Development and the Economy League of Southwestern Pennsylvania.
The looming pension cost increase wasn't unanticipated.
It was built into the law by the same lawmakers who awarded themselves a 50 percent pension boost and then extended a 25 percent raise to 340,000 state and school workers in 2001.
At the time, the State Employees Retirement System and the Public School Employees Retirement System had multibillion-dollar surpluses. Instead of saving that money, lawmakers decided to spend it on raises. At the same time, they decided to vest employees at five years' rather than 10 years' service.
It wouldn't cost taxpayers a penny, legislative leaders boasted, because of the surplus money. Gov. Tom Ridge's administration reiterated the claim, saying the pension boost would have no financial impact.
Four months later, with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, financial markets plummeted dramatically, erasing the surpluses that were supposed to finance those pension increases. In a matter of weeks, it became clear taxpayers would have to pick up the tab.
Jolted back into action by schools scrambling to meet higher pension obligations in 2003, lawmakers acted. This time, in a move described by experts as out of the ordinary, they recalculated payment obligations, spreading the payments out over time and creating a spike in payments 10 years down the road.
Kil Huh, project director of research for Pew Charitable Trusts, said the last time his group looked at Pennsylvania it noticed the state began ratcheting back pension contributions after 2004. Until that time, it had met the full contribution recommended in a formula established by the General Accounting Standards Board.
In recent years, state contributions averaged only 30 percent to 40 percent of the recommended level. The contributions met requirements set by state law. But Huh said the accounting standards board number exists for a reason.
"The assumption for each of the plans is, over a 30-year period, if you pay (the full recommended level) every year, you will be able to meet your pension obligations," he said.
Despite the lower contributions, it looked as though Pennsylvania's gamble with lower payments might work. Robust investment returns in the middle of the decade began to chip away at the size of that 2012-13 balloon payment.
But last year markets tumbled again.
The spike ballooned with a vengeance. Now, both pension systems project they'll need to boost employer contributions to about 30 percent of payroll in 2012-13 in order to meet obligations.
Shortly before the market decline, Gov. Ed Rendell's administration issued a call to action on the pension issue. Former Budget Secretary Michael Masch warned that even minor market declines could trigger dire consequences and soaring pension fund payments. He issued recommendations that gained little traction with lawmakers.
Rendell spokesman Gary Tuma said his boss had hoped the Legislature would address the issue.
"The governor is very concerned about it, and any time the budget staff does extended projections for several years out, he insists that they include the cost of the spike. He believes we have to address it," Tuma said.
A few lawmakers have studied the issue for the past several years, but it's not one that's easily explained or legislated away.
"People tend to glaze over when I speak of these things. But given the situation now, more members who are working on this issue and members of the public are paying attention," said Sen. Pat Browne, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Rep. Sam Rohrer, minority chairman of the House Finance Committee, said levying new taxes to pay for the obligation is not an option.
"I don't think the people of the state will sit for it, not when in some cases they've lost their pensions entirely or seen them diminished greatly," he said.
Rohrer and Browne said it's likely lawmakers once again will consider reamortizing the state's pension debt. But they insisted additional changes will be considered.
It's likely lawmakers will consider increasing the number of years employees must work to be fully vested in the plan and reducing the multiplier the state uses to determine pension benefits. There's the possibility of looking at a defined contribution program.
"It's an enormous challenge. We don't want to begin reclassifying our payments to the schools from education subsidies to pension payments," Browne said.

District Spends $28,439.01 On Meetings.

2009-03-12T10:29:00.000-04:00

Every year, the Oley Valley School District approves sending administrators and teachers on a bevy of meetings.

In 2008, the school board approved sending a combination of administrators or teachers on forty-two conferences/workshops at a cost of $20,439.01. This figure does not include money spent on student field trips.

King of Prussia, Hershey, Harrisburg, Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, Lancaster, Summerdale, State College, Manheim, Camp Hill, Grantville, and Philadelphia are the popular spots in Pennsylvania.

Atlantic City and Cherry Hill, New Jersey saw some business. Even Florence, Italy was a host.

The justification for these trips was “professional development”. The district does not have any objective standards to measure professional development. They cannot calculate the educational benefits to the students or the fiscal gains to the community.

However, the public continues to see static student test scores and yearly increases in real estate taxes.

The board says they are earnestly working on the 2009-2010 budget. They are doing everything in their power during these hard economic times to reduce unnecessary expenditures.

Yet at one of the many spending requests of the Superintendent, the board majority approved another trip, this time to New Orleans, Louisiana costing $1,235.11. Based on the 2008 tabulations, these junkets will add up to a hefty sum.

There are two board meetings in March.

The Regular School Board Meeting on March 18,2009 at the Berks Career & Technology Center, East Campus Board Room at 7:00 PM.

The Budget and Finance Meeting on March 25, 2009 at the Administration Building Board Room at 7:00 PM.

Both are public meetings where citizens can address the board about district issues.

Taxpayer Bailout

2009-01-22T06:43:00.001-05:00

Our country is going through an unprecedented financial crisis. The government is infusing trillions into the economy in the hopes of preventing a depression. Companies are laying off thousands of employees. The unemployment rate is predicted to reach double digits.
The Oley School District revealed at the budget meeting, that it is experiencing flat or decreasing revenue. Interim, transfer, and earned income taxes are flat or decreasing.
However, the administration is unfazed. They want to increase real estate taxes for the twelfth consecutive year. Not only that, but they plan to petition the state to allow them to increase taxes above the inflation index of 4.47%. They will not say how much over the state allowed budget increase.
The district would not be in this fiscal problem had they spent money wisely. $2,000,000 for a sports complex, $400,000 on legal fees, and recently $11,000 on a junket are just a few examples of fiscal mismanagement that haunts us today. The board and the administration often complain that state mandates cause tax increases. Yet, none of the figures presented are mandated.
The remedy for this debacle discussed at the meeting is local taxpayer bailout, but also, ominous cuts in educational programs. Class size is being reviewed by the administration!
For some reason, the budget committee is not considering freezing non-educational, non-contractual, non-mandated expenses first before they eliminate teachers or crush homeowners.
Concerned citizens should contact their school board member or attend board meetings and offer suggestions on how to manage a budget.

OVSD Loses $2,000,000 Arbitration Ruling

2008-12-09T22:11:00.002-05:00

The Oley Valley School District owes Amthor Steel Inc over $2,000,000. This is the ruling by the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator awarded 100% damages to Amthor and none to the school district.
This case has been arbitrated and adjudicated since 2004. The legal bills for this action are substantial. The district owed $1,850,200.00 to Amthor but refused to pay. The contractor took them to arbitration as specified in the contract with the district.
The district tried to have the case litigated in the Court of Common pleas, but lost in a hearing. They appealed the verdict and lost again.
The district went back to arbitration and lost once more. These rulings are rarely overturned.
The problem is how the district plans to pay this bill. They did not set enough aside in a special fund. They cannot ask for a waiver from the state to raise taxes about the 4.5% inflation index to pay for judgments. They probably do not have enough money in Capital Reserve to pay the judgment and pay for educational needs, as well.
Every day the $2,000,000 is not paid, interest and penalties are added.
There is a board meeting at the Oley Valley School District Administration Board Room ,Wednesday, December 10th at 7:00 PM.
The administration and the school board owes the citizens of the community an explanation.

Taxpayers' Voter Guide

2008-10-27T13:40:00.003-04:00

There are races for the Pennsylvania House and Senate that are extremely important to property owners. We need school property tax elimination. The only fair measure that accomplishes this objective is House Bill 1275.

The Pennsylvania Cyber Coalition compiled a list of candidates that support the taxpayer.

Disclaimer: Determination of a Candidates position is based on a number of factors including: voting history; bills sponsored; public statements; corrospondence; articles published in the media; surveys by various organizations; endorsements and sources of campaign finances. It is based on comparison with the values and goals of the PCTA to Eliminate and Replace School property taxes as the means to fund the Commonwealths public schools. Any reliance you place on supplied information should be verified using a variety of sources before use.

The entire list can be found at their website:

Guide

Berks County:

Supporters of House Bill 1275:

House:

126th - Incumbent & Uncontested Dante Santoni
127th - Incumbent & Uncontested Thomas Caltagirone
128th - Incumbent Sam Rohrer
129th - Incumbent & Uncontested Jim Cox
130th - Incumbent David Kessler
Challenger Richard Gokey

Opposes House Bill 1275:

128th - Challenger John Woodward

Senate:

Supports House Bill 1275:

11th - Challenger Steve Fuhs

Opposes House Bill 1275:

11th - Incumbent Senator Michael O'Pake

Taxpayers Shortchanged $200,000

2008-09-11T13:40:00.001-04:00

The administration announced at the September 10, 2008 board meeting that there was over $200,000 of funds available for the 2008-2009 budget, they did not know existed.
This is not the first time a budget was presented to the board, which did not accurately reflect revenue.
One year there was a discovery of a real estate transaction amounting to over $900,000, which was not tabulated. Last year, additional revenue of $880,000 was miscalculated.
The administration has no credible explanation for their inability to present accurate budget numbers.
The effect of the “unknown” funds is that millage is raised unnecessarily or too much.
The taxpayer gets hit twice. Once for being overcharged for millage, then when the board transfers the surplus to Capital Reserve instead of using it for property tax relief.
There needs to be an overhaul of the budget process and the reasonable disposition of additional funds to insure community confidence in the administration and the board.

"Absolute Power Corrupts, Absolutely"

2008-09-03T17:28:00.002-04:00

The homeowner is under assault from school boards. Each year property taxes rise higher than the rate of inflation or household incomes. Boards go on spending binges then send the bill to the taxpayer. The authority to raise taxes does not quench their thirst for revenue. They devise ways to gouge even more from the citizen.

They can take your property using eminent domain. Eminent domain is the power given to governments to take private property and use it for a public purpose with compensation given to the owner. School boards can make the claim they want a land for expansion. They can take the property and virtually force the owner to accept payment terms.

More recently, the school boards found a way to raise individual property taxes by challenging the assessment. It is illegal to conduct what amounts to “spot assessments” but this does not seem to bother board members.

Now, a board wants to go even further and usurp municipal authority to designate land for use. The board wants to make that decision where to build not the supervisors. This violates Pennsylvania municipal law.

Power happy politicians bullying a community into submission is a disgrace. The taxpayer does not have the resources to counter the abuse.

This debacle can be stopped if people get involved and get informed.

Support your local taxpayer group, attend meetings, and elect fiscally responsible individuals to office.

Can You Hear Us Now !

2008-06-02T18:20:00.004-04:00

Thirty taxpayer groups, hundreds of attendees, and millions of concerned homeowners supported the Save Our Homes rally at the Pennsylvania State Capital. They are not happy with meaningless tax relief schemes from Harrisburg. They want real tax reform.

Citizens throughout the state packed the Rotunda in support of House Bill 1275, Elimination of School Property Taxes.

The video clip will give a sense of the rally attendance and flavor.

Representative Samuel E. Rohrer, the chief bill architect is surrounded by the bill sponsors and taxpayers.

Education Takes A Beating

2008-05-22T01:31:00.002-04:00

Five years ago, the track coach approached the board and told them they needed to repair the track because it was not PIAA compliant. What started out as an alleged repair request has mysteriously turned into a $2,000,000 athletic complex.

The latest add-on is lights for the new facility to the tune of $286,000. In so many words, the light supporters say the fixtures are for their convenience to watch various sporting events.

The entire project was sold on the basis that tax dollars were not used but rather the windfall from the Nextel agreement was the source of revenue.

The Nextel money was taxpayer money because it was revenue received from an asset owned by the district. All monies the district receives are taxpayer owned.

None of the Nextel money was used for education. It was all used for certain sports.

When a small school district such as Oley spends millions on a wish list item, at some time, the bill will come due for payment.

At public meetings, it was revealed there are a number of important obligations to be met.

The repair to elementary school roof, $1,000,000+, the repair of the high school gym, $1,000,000+, the Ag Technology classroom, $750,000+, computers, laptops, printers, routers for the classrooms, $750,000+, the lingering lawsuit from Middle School construction, $1,400,000 +, and the repair to a boiler.

At to this list is the escalating cost of fuel, food, health insurance and teacher pay increases.

The tab on the capital expenses exceeds money set aside for capital projects.
Therefore, as the district drains the Capital Reserve to pay for the “big-ticket list”, it will raise taxes to replenish the fund. Since the reserve has approximately $4,500,000 and one mill represents $650,000 of taxes, it will take nearly 7 mills of new taxes to restore the fund. The new taxes do not cover any operational needs.

Obviously, none of the $2,000,000 spent on the field and track can be used to defray these enormous expenditures.

The assertion then that the track was tax-free and will have no impact on the community is nothing more than hyperbole.

Four board members stepped up to the plate and met their financial obligation to use tax dollars wisely. Instead of bowing to populist demands, they voted against the lights. John Bieber, Steve Burns, Carl Kubitz , and David Maloney are to be praised for their leadership.

As the pigeon comes home to roost, expect next year’s budget to be substantial.

Follow the Money?

2008-04-26T10:13:00.003-04:00

*2008 Cycle 2 – 130th - Republican

Richard L. Gokey:

Total Contributions - $11,585.00

Contributions from Political Action Committees - $2,350.00

BAIPAC - $350.00
KOZLOFF STOUDT - $1,000.00
HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF BERKS - $500.00
FULTON BANK - $500.00

Property Tax Elimination Act HB 1275: Does not support. Wants an earned income tax to eliminate taxes.

* Votes :1977

Mr. Gokey had the endorsements of Greater Reading Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the TriCounty Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Home Builders Association of Berks County.

Aaron Durso:

Total Contributions - $350.00
Contributions from Political Action Committees -$0.00
Property Tax Elimination Act HB 1275: Supports HB1275
*Votes: 1811.

Billy A. Reed:

Total Contributions - $948.20
Contributions from Political Action Committees -$0.00
Property Tax Elimination Act HB 1275: Supports property tax elimination.
Votes: 820

Business and services oppose House Bill 1275, the Property Tax Elimination Act.

Homeowners want property tax reform, not more promises and not more taxes.

*Sources:
Pennsylvania Campaign Finance Reporting
Berks County Election Services Un-official election results.

A Ticking Time Bomb

2008-03-25T11:05:00.003-04:00

“School Districts are getting fleeced…school districts routinely lose when making derivative deals…municipalities are taking on more risk than in the past when they raised money primarily from bond sales…” are the comments made about a special type of financing called swaps.

In a swap, two parties agree to exchange payments over a period of time that can last as long as 30 years. Typically, one agrees to pay a fixed rate and the other to pay a variable rate that changes with a benchmark index or formula defined in the contract.

A financial adviser usually suggests the arrangement between a bank and the governance.

Fees to banks are as much as five times higher than typical rates and advisers are overpaid by as much as 10-fold.

The risk is that the interest rate may turn against the governance, and they will pay dearly for their gamble. In the case of the Erie School District, they had to pay a $2,900,000 exit fee because of a changing interest rate.

The problem has reached a point where the US Justice Department is conducting an investigation.

In 2004, the Oley Valley School District entered into a swaption where the bank could exercise the option in 2012 to require the district to enter into an interest rate swap.

The 2007 audit indicated that the bank paid $819,000 for the option. However, since interest rates changed, the swaption may become a liability.

At the Finance Committee Meeting, the financial adviser made a presentation to the board that they consider a “parameter resolution” which establishes conditions under which the board will pay an exit fee from their agreement.

The fees mentioned at the meeting, could range from $250,000 to $2,500,000 depending on interest rates at the date of termination.

If these exit fees are taken from the General Fund, they would have a profound effect on taxes.

School districts who are strapped for cash are the typical targets of these financial schemes. A school district gets into stress when they do not spend money wisely and try to make up for the shortfall with complicated and speculative investing.

Double Dipping in the Oley Valley School District ?

2008-01-02T16:31:00.000-05:00

Pension perk assailed as 'abuse of the system
A law lets school retirees stay on the job, collecting both paychecks and pensions. How many do? Nobody knows.

By Dan Hardy
Inquirer Staff Writer

John Baillie retired from his $228,826-a-year job as the Chester County Intermediate Unit's executive director in January with an annual pension of $163,289. But he didn't leave until six months later, after receiving almost $80,000 in pension payments along with his salary.

Barbara Burke-Stevenson retired as superintendent of Bucks County's New Hope-Solebury School District on Aug. 1, 2006, with an annual pension of $80,802. She stayed for another year, collecting retirement payments while getting a salary of $155,000.

Baillie and Burke-Stevenson are among hundreds of school administrators and other employees - no one knows how many - who have been "double-dipping" since the passage of a 2004 law that allowed them to work while collecting pensions for up to a year if employers say their departure would create an emergency, or if there is a shortage of qualified replacements.

The law's proponents, including the Pennsylvania School Boards Association and the state's Public School Employees' Retirement System (PSERS), say the practice is needed to staff unexpected vacancies or difficult-to-fill jobs.

But PSERS, in a ruling made public Monday, said Baillie and his board manipulated the system and broke the rules because the board had a qualified replacement. He was ordered to return the pension payments. PSERS said it was not conducting a general review but was responding to citizen complaints.

When Perzel's "come back and teach act" came up in 2004 the House Educ Committee was warned it had nothing to do with getting substitute teachers; it had to do with double dipping and was being promoted by school administrators. This is the arrangement you created!!!!

When this bill was before the committee Rep. Rohrer and Metcalf argued it was ripe for manipulation. Rohrer pointed out it was easy for administrators to "arrange" their emergencies with the collusion or cooperation of boards. It has proven to do just that.

Rep. Grucela and Pallone pooh poohed the arguments against the bill. Pallone said his grandmother told him not to worry about other people's money just take care of his own. Well he can pay my taxes. School boards all complain about pension costs and say they have no control over most costs. These fake emergencies and the large amounts of hidden compensation are something they can control.

A state developed uniform superintendent contract is needed. It must include complete disclosure of all current, accruing and future costs!!!

How To Write-In A Vote

2007-10-28T18:43:00.000-04:00

How Do I "Write-in" A Vote?

Before you close the curtain, ask the Judge of Election to explain the write-in process. You should cast your write-in votes after you have pushed the buttons of any other candidates you support.

They should also provide writing instruments for you for a write-in vote. It may be best if you bring your own.

Step 1:

For the Office for which you want to cast a write-in vote, Press the respective write-in button.

There is a separate write-in button for each office on the ballot. It is important that the correct write-in button be pushed, or the vote will not count as intended.

Step 2:

Then press in the large flashing red button at the top of the machine, wait for the machine to open the write-in window.

Step3:

Write or stamp your candidate's name on the exposed paper in the window.

Step 4:

Then pull the black shutter down over the name you have written, closing the window.

Close the window thoroughly! Give it a little tug. The flashing red light will stop when the shutter is completely closed.

Step 5:

Finally, Press the Green “Vote” button to record all your votes made on the ballot.

Video of Write-In Voting: (Windows Media Video)

Link

Source: Berks County Election Services

Are You Registered To Vote?

2007-09-25T08:44:00.000-04:00

The November 6th election for OVSD school board candidates may not be the slam dunk the current list of hand picked candidates expect. Please register to vote. This must be done 30 days PRIOR to the November 6,2007 election.

Where to Apply to Register to Vote

Apply to Register to Vote in Person

Individuals may apply to register to vote at a County Voter Registration Office or other designated sites. A link to County Contact Information is located to the left.
Apply to Register to Vote by Mail

An individual may apply to register to vote by mail in one of three ways.

The first option is to obtain a voter registration mail application form prescribed by the State or Federal government. The Secretary of the Commonwealth and all county registration commissions supply voter registration mail applications to all persons and organizations who request them, including candidates, political parties and political bodies and other Federal, State, and municipal offices.
The second option is to download the voter registration application available from this site. It can be accessed through the Voter Registration link to the left.
The third option is to complete the Online Pennsylvania Voter Registration Application Form which can also be accessed through the Voter Registration link to the left.

Apply to Register to Vote at PennDOT

Individuals may apply to register to vote at a Department of Transportation photo license center when he/she obtains or updates his/her driver's license.
Apply to Register to Vote at Government Agencies

Individuals may apply to register to vote at many other State government offices, including:

State offices that provide public assistance and services to persons with disabilities.
Department of Transportation photo license centers.
Armed Forces Recruitment Centers
County Clerk of Orphans' Court offices, including each Marriage License Bureau.
Area Agencies on Aging.
Centers for Independent Living.
County Mental Health and Mental Retardation Offices.
Student disability services offices of the State System of Higher Education.
Offices of Special Education.
ADA Complementary Paratransit offices.

Oley Concerned Citizens Joins Forces with the Pennsylvania Taxpayers Cyber Coalition

2007-09-19T07:09:00.000-04:00

The Pennsylvania Taxpayers Cyber Coalition board unanimously approved the membership of the Oley Concerned Citizens into their organization. They heard of our efforts on behalf of the Oley taxpayers and apparently felt we would make a good addition to their already strong, state-wide coalition of taxpayers.

The PTCC have the following goals:

“The PTCC and the statewide umbrella group, the Pennsylvania Coalition of Taxpayer Associations (PCTA), are dedicated, through legislative reform, to eliminating school property taxes for all Pennsylvanians and to the equitable funding of all Pennsylvania schools from a broad-based, statewide funding source. Such a source would equalize disparities between wealthy and poorer school districts, ensuring a quality education for all Pennsylvania schoolchildren. The PTCC is a proponent for the immediate repeal of Act 1, the fraudulent school property tax “relief” bill that was signed into law in June 2006. The PTCC is a supporter of The School Property Tax Elimination Act of 2007, otherwise known as the Plan for Pennsylvania's Future, a pending House bill that will eliminate all school property and nuisance taxes and provide equitable funding for all Pennsylvania schools.”

The Act 1 referendum turned out to be a farce. The hope was that it had a meaningful control on spending it does not. The inflation index to manage school board extravagance is too generous and the exemptions to the index make the legislation a cruel hoax.

The hybrid version of Act 1, House Bill 1600 is even worse; it has no spending controls at all just promises.

The cost of public education is too expensive to be funded primarily by local property taxes. The school boards and the teachers’ unions ran up such a tab, that only a state wide funding solution would solve this crisis.

The remedy for the malady rests in the The School Property Tax Elimination Act of 2007. It is fair and equitable for all because it spreads the burden over a wider base of citizens.

The Oley Concerned Citizens joins the Pennsylvania Taxpayers Cyber Coalition in their effort to effect true tax reform in the state.

We will continue to hold the Oley Valley School Board accountable for fiscal and educational results, but now we have more resources in that effort.

School Boards Want More Taxing Power

2007-08-20T19:30:00.000-04:00

The executive director of the Pennsylvania School Board Association, Mr. Thomas Gentzel, presented the association’s blueprint for tax reform to state lawmakers.

The association proclaims high taxes are the “symptom” of improper financing rather than the spending decisions of school boards.

Packaged in “A Blueprint for Comprehensive Local Tax Reform” the PSBA outlines a three-step process in maintaining and strengthening school board control.

The first and probably most important demand is they want to have the authority to tax more than real estate. They do not define just what additional menu of items they want to tax, but rest assured their ravenous spending appetite requires a myriad of choices. Overall, taxes will go way up not down for anyone.

Next, they want more money from the state. This is an old complaint. Every year at budget time, the boards blame the state for not sending more money. Harrisburg becomes a convenient whipping boy to cover for local financial ineptitude. The school board’s complaint of being strapped for cash, conflicts with the millions they stash in off-budget funds for pet projects.

Finally, the PSBA wants the state to reduce the costs of the district. This is an ironic request. The state does not mandate high teacher pay and benefits, grandiose buildings or extravagant non-educational spending. Only the local boards make those decisions.

The possible savings generated from the state eliminating mandates or building requirements will only end up in some hastily conceived fund to be wasted by the board.

As part of the strategy, the PSBA held meetings to deal with the referendum. A superintendent from another district gave a presentation at a meeting of invited school board members. The public was not invited.

“Referendum, Its Here, It’s New and It’s Exciting” is a playbook describing carefully tested and crafted tactics on how to sell excessive spending to the community. Identify the groups and market to them with all the resources of the district is the thrust of the political campaign.

The Pennsylvania School Board Association’s agenda can be described in one sentence. They want more authority to tax, more money from the state, less controls over spending and no accountability. This is not tax reform, but rather a power grab by school boards under siege.

They will achieve their greedy purpose unless citizens contact their representatives and demand the taxpayers' voice be heard.

The Oley Valley School Board Creates the Wrong Image

2007-07-09T13:32:00.000-04:00

The Oley School Board’s behavior is getting so humiliating that taxpayers may have to put bags over their heads from embarrassment.

The board’s actions are attracting continued negative coverage in the news media.

“Oley School Board remains in denial”, “Proposed changes block Sunshine Act”, and “Public’s business must remain public” are the glaring editorial headlines describing the board’s blatant defiance of the Sunshine Act.

Preventing the public from seeing a public document or inhibiting participation at meetings casts a dark shadow over the valley.

What does not receive attention in the local media is even more concerning.

The board surrenders to the wage and benefit demands of the teachers union.

Duplicate tax bills are sent to some residents.

The district loses track of $741,000 of revenue and they must hastily patch the 2005-2006 budget.

The board lets a track repair turn into a feeding frenzy of spending on a non-educational expense.

The district still owes a steel contractor for Middle School work. They run up hefty legal bills and lose in court.

They waste the windfall from the Nextel lease agreement on a grandiose athletic facility and ignore education.

They refuse to release the list of Big Ticket Items of future spending.

The eleventh grade PSSA test scores are discouraging.

Finally, the board raises taxes for the ninth consecutive year, while having over $5,500,000 sitting in surplus funds.

At this pace, there will not be enough bags to hide the shame.

Board Squanders Windfall

2007-06-21T04:25:00.000-04:00

At the June 20 , 2007 meeting superintendent Dr. Jeffrey Zackon announced that the district concluded a leasing agreement with Nextel.

Nextel agrees to lease for a period of thirty years, EBS channels owned by the district for certain compensation.

Nextel will pay a one-time nonrefundable upfront payment of $1,400,000. In addition, they will pay a yearly leasing fee as follows: Years 1-5, $50,000, Years 6-10, $75,000, Years 11-15, $100,000, Years 16-20, $125,000, Years 21-30 $200,000.

If taxpayers think they will see any benefit from this deal, they will be sorely disappointed.

The district manager immediately put the $1,400,000 into the Capital Reserve Fund. The normal practice is any money coming into the district goes to the General Fund. It is then transferred out of the General Fund into the Capital Reserve Fund only with board approval at a public meeting. Once the funds are put into Capital Reserve, its use is limited to capital expenditures and not operating expenses.

This maneuver also prevents any public review and comment.

The $1,400,000 added to the other $5,500,000 of surplus funds sitting in the district coffers. Yet the board voted to increase taxes for the ninth consecutive year, anyway.

The board President indicated the entire upfront payment would be used on the track. The district will not be using the windfall for any computers, desks, books, etc., but rather for a synthetic athletic field.

They also declare tax dollars then will not be used for the athletic facility. Though the assertion is technically correct, any finances coming into the district do belong to the taxpayers and the use or misuse of them will eventually affect taxes, directly or indirectly.

As far as the future yearly lease payments to the district, the community can only wonder where the board’s whims and fancies will spend the funds. If recent history is any indication, it may not be for education.

Once the announcement was made by the superintendent, a board member launched into a verbal assault on the public and the press. Ms. Bieber took great offense to the community asking questions about the agreement. The Reading Eagle thought they violated the Sunshine Law by not revealing the details to the public once the paperwork was signed September 26, 2006.

Following the standard public relations strategy, messengers will be sent into the community trumpeting the contract. But the sad truth is that the rightful beneficiaries of the lease may ultimately feel cheated.

Board Raises Taxes For The Ninth Consecutive Year

2007-06-14T05:06:00.000-04:00

For the ninth consecutive year, the Oley Valley School District raised school property taxes. Millage in 1998 was 13.59. The board approved the raising the millage to 23.42 at the June 13, 2007 meeting.

What cost a homeowner $1,359 of taxes per $100,000 of assessed value in 1998, will now cost $2,342 of taxes per $100,000 of assessed value in 2007, a 72% increase!

The board needs $598,000 dollars of additional money. They could easily have a no tax increase budget because they have over $5,600,000 of money sitting in surplus funds. However, they refuse to give the homeowner a break claiming it would be fiscally unsound. To them spending $1,600,000 on a non-educational expense such as a track is a frugal use of our tax dollars.

The district had millions sitting is surplus funds in previous years, but they continue to raise taxes.

Well over 80% of school budgets are determined at the local level. Therefore, the often used excuse that state mandates cause tax increases lacks much substance.

The following board members voted to approve the 2007-2008 budget:

Robert A. Heckman
Mary Anne McCarthy
Barbara M. Bieber
Robert J. Cappa
Scarlette Z. Gotwals
Christopher M. Hannum
Kerry Madeira
David M. Maloney, Sr.

Ralph C. Richard was absent from the meeting.

$225,000 Lights for the $1,400,000 Track

2007-05-10T11:03:00.000-04:00

The Oley Valley School Board continues its voracious appetite to spend our tax dollars.
The latest adventure concerns lights for the $1,400,000 synthetic track.
The Property and Transportation Committee member Christopher M. Hannum put forth the idea to spend up to $225,000 for lighting. He says the impetus for the proposal will be the convenience to attend athletic events at night rather than during the day.
When the board was asked how they plan to pay for this wish-list item, Finance Committee member Ralph C. Richard inferred that tax dollars would not be used, but he refused to explain his comment. In other words, the board has no idea how they will pay for the lights.
The track started with almost the same promise of outside financing. A group would raise half the cost and the district would cover the rest. The initial advertised price started at $450,000, then ballooned to over $1,400,000. The result was the track supporters did not meet their commitment, so the taxpayers, as usual, paid for the bulk of the boondoggle.
As is the case with a liberal socialist school board, they are talking about constructing a stadium, as well. The price would be $250 per seat.
The track, the lights, and the stadium are not state mandated, nor do they have anything to do with education. As they did with the track, the board will tell the public that the decision on the lights is not final. Yet, already, they plan to spend thousands for bids.
The board complains the state does not send enough money to the district and therefore the state is responsible for the high property taxes.
The reality of the situation is that we have a school board who acts no better than the politicians in Harrisburg who gave themselves midnight pay increases, both waste money, one for financial gain, the other for an agenda.
The next school board meeting is Wednesday, May 16, 2007, at 7:00 PM in the Administration Boardroom. The community has the opportunity to voice their opinion about the board’s spending plans.

Act 1 Faces The Voters

2007-05-01T20:52:00.000-04:00

The fate of the Act 1 provision to have voter referendum approval instituting taxes on local income will be determined May 15, 2007.
Citizens will render their verdicts regarding Governor Rendell’s version of property tax relief.
If the voters endorse the tax on either earned or personal income, then most of this new revenue is for property tax relief.
The probable beneficiaries would be low income and seniors who own homes.
Even if the public votes against the measure, Act 1 will still be the tax package for the Commonwealth.
The legislation is unpopular with school boards because it has a back-end referendum potentially putting modest limits on spending.
The taxpayer groups are unhappy because they expect a tax relief package of sales tax and state income taxes to replace local school property taxes. Others say the exemptions to the inflation index make the legislation meaningless and the promised gambling proceeds for tax relief are the figment of a Governor’s imagination.
The odds makers are predicting a rejection by the voters. If this is the case, then the assumption is the citizens want Harrisburg to go back to the drawing board and come up with a “true” tax reform package.
Tax reform means different things to different people. To a school board and certain special interests, it means unfettered access to more sources of family income without spending controls. To the taxpayer groups, it means the elimination of the school taxes and replacing them with other revenue sources.
Unfortunately, the Governor, the House and the Senate are in no mood to start a new round of debates on public school finances. Property tax reform is on the bottom of the list of things to do much less being on the list at all.
“Throw the bums out” will be the rallying cry, again. The politicians seem unfazed by these threats even after a racking in the press and a modest house cleaning in the last election.
If the scenario of voter rejection to raise local taxes is met by Harrisburg responding to the outcome with indifference, the citizens do have the option of molding Act 1 to their liking.
It is far easier to change sections of existing statutes than to convince a horde of politicians with various agendas to creating new laws.
Eliminating the exemptions to the inflation index-spending cap is a start.

Monkey Business

2007-04-16T12:03:00.000-04:00

Every year the school boards complain they do not have enough funds for education much less the ability to reduce the budget.
“There is no way to cut. The only way you could cut would be by eliminating curriculum” asserts Wilson School Board President Jason B. Hopp in the Reading Eagle Sunday paper, “School Officials fault tax shift law”. In the same article, Exeter board president Kenneth P. Levan parrots “The only place that a school district can look at is reducing staff and increasing class size.”
The Oley Valley School District uses the same rehearsed talking points. School districts monthly Treasurers report reveals they have millions sitting in surplus funds. Frequently these tax dollars are wasted on wish list projects for special interest groups. In the case of Oley, it is the extravagant $1,400,00+, track/facility.
Adding to this buffoonery is the the threat that if they keep taxes in line for only one year, then citizens will be "nailed" next year.
What high handed arrogance!
This pork barrel drains money from education and drives up property taxes. Using surplus money as a slush fund may get politicians elected to a school board, but it shortchanges the students and the homeowners.
When you hear a school board member whine about not having enough money or proclaim there is no place to cut spending, you can be assured this no more than monkey business.

School Board Fears Referendum

2007-03-22T21:57:00.000-04:00

The property tax relief package is a “scam” according to one Oley Valley School District board member. He wanted them to pass a resolution to have House Bill 1 repealed.
For most seniors and the low-income households, the bill is not a trick because it will provide relief.
The real savings to all taxpayers is the threat of referendum control placed on future budgets not the redistribution of earned income taxes or the sharing of gambling proceeds.
A school board does not want to test the waters of exposing proposed spending to voters. The potential rejection by the taxpayers is not good politics.
Even with a generous inflation index and with liberal exemptions to the index, the board chafes at the idea of sharing power.
The influence of the referendum is so strong that the Pennsylvania School Board Association has at the top of their 2007 legislative platform the following goal: "Supports legislation that would relieve school districts from the impact of the back-end referendum requirements of Act 1 of Special Session 2006, including efforts to expand the number and scope of exceptions
The Pennsylvania State Education Association will spend considerable time and money to "oppose public referenda on school budgets in any form and by any name"
Board members will privately pretend to side with citizens who will not benefit from the tax relief package. However, the real motivation is to go back to the good old days of carte blanche budgets.
The district plans to have “talks” with various groups in the valley about House Bill 1. Perhaps, an impartial presenter should be the messenger.

Board Chooses A Track Over Education

2007-02-22T09:23:00.000-05:00

The politicians in Washington have their pork, the Oley Valley School Board is no different. The majority voted to approve a track costing well over $1,000,000.
A special interest group complained the current track was not PIAA compliant. They also complained about the surface and appearance.
The estimates for refurbishing the facility began at $450,000. The track supporters promised to pay for half.
Board President Robert A. Heckman reassured the community that there were no decisions to move forward on the request. However, after the board voted to pay an architect $33,000 for a design of the new facility, his assurances were met with skepticism.
Soon other groups arrived with their demands and the costs rocketed over $1,400,000. Again, Mr. Heckman offered more assurances that no decisions were finalized.
Soon, the group that promised to pay half through fund raising could not meet their obligations. The board was forced to change their commitment from funding half the cost to paying “at least half the cost”. In other words, they obligated the taxpayers to pay more than their fair share.
The official cost of this new athletic facility is $1,403,356.00. It will serve up to 120 students. There are over 2,000 students in the district.
The board could have voted for the $820,356 option and met PIAA concerns, instead they choose the most expensive plan. During the bid process, the district refused to consider other less costly options than a synthetic surface.
Had they maintained the track, there would be no need to spend such an enormous sum now.
The track is not state mandated. The state does not consider this an educational expense either because it is not one of the ten exemptions to referendum on school spending.
There will be some who say the money came from the Capital Reserve Fund and not the operational budget, therefore, taxes were not affected. The Capital Reserve Fund is created will tax dollars. When the reserve is depleted by a major expenditure, it is replenished with tax dollars.
The future needs of education will be short $1,403,356.00 and it too must be funded with higher school tax dollars.
The school board could have put the plan in the 2007-2008 budget, thereby requiring in effect, a referendum vote of approval by the entire community rather than the influence of a special interest group on this extravagance.
Seven board member voted “Yes” , Robert A. Heckman, Scarlette Gotwals, Barbara M. Bieber, Richard M. Maloney, Christopher M. Hannum,Kerry Madeira, Ralph C. Richard.
One board member voted “No”, Mary Anne McCarthy. She felt the cost was too high, but she would have voted for a less expensive version. Robert Cappa was absent.
The district wants to raise taxes for the seventh consecutive year in the 2007-2008 budget. Paradoxically, they complain the state does not send enough money for “educational” needs.
The voters will have an opportunity to vote on the board’s perpetual, insatiable, spending appetite in May 2007. There are five seats up for election.
Let your voice be heard!

What Is The District Hiding?

2007-02-08T08:56:00.000-05:00

The Oley Valley School District started a process, which drastically reduces access to school information.
The school board approved a public participation policy inhibiting and preventing community comment at regular school board meetings. They continued their assault on our rights with a new public record request policy that potentially makes school documents too expensive for review.
Apparently, these tactics are not enough because the administration recently refused a public document at a budget meeting. The business manager gave the school board a “big ticket list” for them to consider for the 2007-2008 budget. When asked at the meeting for a copy of this list, the business manager refused the request. The district even denied the document after a written request.
What is on this list the school board does not want the community to see?
Is it another $1,400,000 non-educational pork barrel project? Are they planning another Taj Mahal building even though student enrollment cannot justify such expenditure? Does the administration want a grandiose duplication of our high-speed internet connections? Does the administration want a complete refurbishing of their offices with mahogany desks, Chippendale chairs, and oriental rugs? Does the superintendent want another $13,000 pay increase? Are we facing another $1,000,000 lawsuit? Does the school board want more money for banquets?
We know one item that is not on the list, tax relief.
The preliminary 2007-2008 budget submitted to the state has our millage rising from 22.50 mills to 23.85 mills, a 6% increase. This will be the seventh consecutive increase in school property taxes.
Yet the budget states the district has “Total Cash and Short Term Investments” totaling $4,575,400!
$4,575,400 of excessive taxation dollars sitting in funds and a wish list the board does not want us to see.
You do the math.

The Public Is Not Invited

2007-02-02T15:18:00.000-05:00

The Oley Valley School District is having a banquet at the Sheraton Hotel and the public is not welcome.
You will not find this feast publicly listed on the district or school board meeting calendars.
The stated purpose of the gathering is for curriculum auditors to give an overview of their plans to audit the school educational structure.
The number of invited guests will be approximately thirty people. They will consist of administrators, supervisors, and school board members only.
In addition to the dinner, the high school string orchestra will provide entertainment.
To pay for this festivity, the district will use Pennsylvania Project 720 grant money.
“Project 720 began during the 2004–05 school year when the state allocated federal dollars to support pilot implementation and exploratory grants for districts to tackle high school redesign using research-based strategies.”
Gov. Rendell even dedicated $4.3 million in state funds for an expansion of the Project.
The purpose of this grant money is for the educators to invest in strategies to improve the standards of education and not to spend these precious educational dollars on dinners for themselves.
This expense may not be significant, but the message the district sends to the students and to the community is priceless.
This is a disgraceful misuse of our tax dollars.

Accountability - A Thorn For the Status Quo

2007-01-05T12:11:00.000-05:00

Fiscal and educational accountability is a thorn in the side of those who defend the status quo in education. They use various mediums and monuments as part of their strategies to pacify parents/taxpayers.
To the consternation of the school districts and of the school boards, people can gather accurate information from sources outside the public relations machine.
The schools, the state and federal governments have records available for review. Right to Know and Sunshine Laws provide assistance with citizen requests.
Private organizations offer even more volumes of detailed information about the school districts.
The most recent source, the National Council on Teacher Quality has a “new database giving unprecedented access into the contents of collective bargaining agreements and school board policies from the nation's 50 largest school districts”.
Selecting a few of the districts on their database offers interesting salary comparisons.

Philadelphia School District;
Top Salary: $65,322.

Chicago School District:
Top Salary: $68,261

Florida – Dade County School District:
Top Salary: $67,225

Texas – Dallas School District:
Top Salary: $64,782

Oley Valley School District:

Contract 2006-2007:
Top Salary: $74,370

Contract 2009-2010:
Top Salary: $80,070

The College Board published SAT scores by state in 2004. Iowa scored the highest mean Verbal and Math score of 1182. The average teacher salary in Iowa is $39,284.
The Oley Valley School District Verbal and Math score in 2006 was 1053. The average Oley Valley School District Teacher Salary is approximately $53,000.
Families are able to compare budgets and test performance of their district to those in the state and the nation. They have the ability to determine which system gives their children a quality education at an affordable price.
This is good news for those who want improvement and bad news for obstructionists.

The more things change the more they stay the same

2006-12-19T10:21:00.000-05:00

“The more things change the more they stay the same” is an expression applicable to the 2007-2008 budget deliberations. After years of requesting a new local school tax structure from Harrisburg, and finally having them pass House Bill 1, would also require a new approach by the board in creating their budgets. Unfortunately, the Oley School Board did not get the memo.
At the December 18, 2007, the district presented the board with a “Proposed Preliminary Budget Summary”.
Summary is an appropriate term because the discussion was not a line item analysis required under state form 2028 but rather expense totals. This sketchy information does not provide the public enough of a description to determine educational versus frivolous non-educational expenditures.
The administration and the board could not even answer the question regarding expenses which are contractual and which expenses are discretionary in nature. Discretionary decisions are those made by the board and would include Wish List items.
Also not reviewed at the meeting where the off-budget money sitting in funds. They include the General Fund Balance, the Capital Reserve Fund, and the Capital Project Funds. The monies in these funds are important because they are available for property tax relief in the form of lower millage increases.
Last year, the district had over $6,000,000 languishing in these accounts, yet they raised taxes for the sixth consecutive year.
This year they claim they have no idea what these balances will be even though they prepared a 2007-2008 operating budget. Preparing a budget without knowing about money in reserve contradicts responsible spending plans.
Funds balances seem to be the repository for tax dollars earmarked for projects that get people re-elected to school boards. Harrisburg uses Walk Around Money to buy votes, school boards have these off-budget funds for the same purpose.
Paying millions in school taxes for education is one thing, paying millions in taxes for politicians to be elected is another.
As usual, probing questions about the budget and fund balances meet with either annoyed responses from the board or no responses at all, dé•jà vu.
Based on the 2007-2008 Proposed Preliminary Budget Summary presented by the business manager, the district can increase revenue by $1,091,053 dollars or approximately 1.678 mills. These numbers represent the inflation index and the projected exceptions to the inflation index. Anything above this figure would require a referendum approval by the taxpayers.

Auditor Finds Violation of State Law

2006-11-16T11:17:00.000-05:00

Each year, an auditor reviews the district’s accounting practices to see if they comply with the state’s standards and procedures. They analyzed the 2005-2006 budget year.
Act 48 of 2003 says the district may not have more than eight percent of the budget in fund balance.
The auditor found the district exceeded the regulation by $741,000.
The board claimed they knew nothing of Act 48.
The code clearly states on the Pennsylvania Department of Education website,
"For the 2005-2006 school year and each school year thereafter, no school district shall approve an increase in real property taxes unless it has adopted a budget that includes an estimated ending unreserved, undesignated fund balance less than the percentages set forth as follows:
Total Budget Expenditures equal to or greater than $19,000,000, then the “Fund Balance Limit %, Less Than or equal to 8%.”
The Oley Valley 2005-2006 Total Budget Expenditures were $25,678,823.
Furthermore, the law states,
“By August 15, 2005 and August 15 of each year thereafter, each school district that approves an increase in real property taxes shall provide the Department of Education with information certifying compliance with this section.”
The certification form requires the School Board President, the Secretary of the Board, and the Chief School Administrator signatures.
The board hastily voted to assign the $741,000 into a “designated fund balance”.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education says however, “You are required to formally reopen the budget to account for additional local revenue.”
The directors may create another problem when they “designate” this surplus. It may not belong to the district as they contend, but rather to the taxpayers as part of the tax relief package under House Bill 1.
If there were proper oversight, there would not be these problems. The tax dollars in question could have lowered the 2005-2006 school property taxes, as well.

Treasurer’s Report Reveals Shocker

2006-11-13T14:14:00.000-05:00

Every month the district issues a Treasurer’s Report. It shows the balances in various off-budget funds, the General Fund, the Capital Reserve Fund, and the Capital Projects Fund.
There are other funds with substantial balances, but only these are available to defray spending, and therefore, provide school property tax relief.
This information is available from the school district. It is a Public Record.
Each year the board tells the community it does not have enough money for education, and they must raise taxes.
Last year, they had over $6,000,000 in these funds, yet they increased millage for the sixth consecutive year.
This year, they have $16,455,594 sitting in funds. This represents approximately 25.3 mills of taxes!
The board’s yearly assertion they must raise taxes needs testing against documented, enormous, tax dollar, balances available for use.
They owe the citizens a complete budget discussion.
The next Budget and Finance Committee Meeting is Wednesday, November 15, 2006 , at 6:00 p.m. at the Administration Building boardroom.
It is a Public Meeting and you can ask questions.

The Lawsuit Against the District Grows

2006-11-11T15:35:00.000-05:00

The lawsuit against the district continues to be a problem for the school board.

In September 2006, a judge threw out the district’s case because it did not have merit. In his opinion, the board should abide by their contract with the contractor to arbitrate disputes rather than trying to shift the case to court.

The board appeals this ruling. The school directors told citizens since the beginning of this year this information was not available to the public. Yet the documents were reviewable September 2005.

This case began in October 2004, and the legal tab is growing to a point where the community deserves some answers. We have every right to ask questions. The board does not have to answer them, but the for the sake of transparency, they should.

Amthor Steel wants over $1,400,000 in payments and damages. There is only $1,200,000 in the Capital Project Funds to cover this claim. The district cannot ask the state for over $1,000,000 in refunds regarding the Middle School project until the case concludes. In addition, there was $810,541.00 of cost overruns for the new building.

The board aggravates the issue when they appear to violate the state Sunshine Law by not voting publicly on the appeal. The law says a governing body can deliberate litigation in private, but any official action resulting from those conversations must be at a public meeting. The board admits they had no public vote on the appeal.

The board’s stonewalling of questions or the flaunting of Sunshine Laws do not garner confidence or trust.

The district pins their hopes on the subterfuge that the contractor violated the Pennsylvania Steel Procurement Act. The judge did not buy this at the hearing, and it is doubtful the result will be any different in the Court of Common Pleas.

The money wasted on litigation could be more beneficial for educational needs. The burden then is on the board to win this case. Otherwise, the voters will render their verdict next election.

School District May Make Public Records Expensive

2006-11-01T22:37:00.000-05:00

The Oley Valley School District continues to circle the wagons with another policy designed to restrict and inhibit community participation in the educational process.
The Policy Committee, headed by Robert J. Cappa recently passed a policy to restrict public comment at the regular board meetings.
Despite several editorials in the Reading Eagle, Board is obligated to listen to the public, Proposed changes block Sunshine Act, Revised Oley Policy still may be illegal, suggesting the policy violates not only the spirit of the First Amendment, but maybe the state Sunshine Laws, the Policy Committee and the board voted their anti-free speech rules anyway.
Mr. Cappa in his letter to the editor “An audience not guaranteed” sneered at the idea he must listen to the community.
Lately, the Policy Committee concocted a standard regarding Public Records. A new Fee Structure can potentially make in-file information very costly.
The copy costs will be twenty-five cents a copy. There could be an hourly rate, as well.
Mr. Cappa lectured in his letter to the editor “Letter twisted comments” in rebuttal to the idea that the district would charge hourly rates for public information,
“The policy specifically states that the district shall not assess any fees for staff time or resources used to evaluate a request for access to pub-lic records. This is unchanged”
However, the new phrase in the Fee Structure Cost to provide the required material, other than paper, should be reasonable and shall be determined by the Superintendent contradicts his claim.
They assert the policy is misinterpreted, yet they cannot define what “Cost to provide the required material, other than paper” means.
This loophole can easily inhibit access for people of modest means.
The committee claimed the revision is for anyone who makes “volumes” of requests. When asked if they could provide any examples of such an event, they could not site any. When asked why they would change a policy that worked in the past, they could not provide a reason, either. When asked what the hourly rate might be, they did not have an answer.
Mr. Cappa gloated over the possibility that a Right to Know lawsuit might resolve the matter.
The Reading Eagle wrote an editorial about the Oley Valley School District, “Board action violates public’s right to know” describing their refusal to discuss the Nextel lease agreement.
Potential exorbitant fees preventing the public from records they have every right to see and review tests the Right to Know Law, as well.

OVSD Board Spins a Citizen

2006-10-19T09:16:00.000-04:00

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video must be worth a novel.

The Oley Valley School Board dances with questions from a taxpayer. The community member wants clarification on the Nextel lease and on the results of the PSSA tests.

The Reading Eagle editorial says the board violates the Sunshine Act by not revealing all the details of a pending lease agreement with Nextel. There are revenue and cost projections that should be public information.

The district uses the solicitor to fend off any inquiries.

Dr. Stubits, the Assistant Superintendent sang the praises of the PSSA test results earlier in the meeting, yet retreats from her exhalations when the speaker raises questions that are more detailed.

During the entire exchange, the school board remains silent.