Will They Ever Stop?
On the night of May 23rd, the Board of Education was provided a revised budget proposal for the school year of 2000-2001. One of the strangest announcements made that evening was that the district's Superintendant, John Sonedecker, had erred when arranging for the inclusion of self-supporting programs in the now defeated budget. "Their presence served only to confuse the public and raise the appearance of the budget increase to 12 1/2% when, if not included, the budget would have shown only an 11.4% increase," he said.

Those self-supporting programs were School Aged Child Care (SACC), Summer Recreation Programs and Saturday Enrichment Programs. District documents contradict one another as to their operational costs. The defeated budget announcement indicated their worth to be $984,813. The more recent proposal suggests they are valued at only $970,735. Why the fourteen grand difference?

The table below compares revenues available to defray budget operations before any tax levy. They represent data published by the district in their April 17th defense of the now defeated budget - minus the reputed costs for the self-sustaining programs - and the May 23rd report in support of the revised budget. Note their differences.

BUDGET REVENUES	DEFEATED	REVISED	CHANGE
State Aid	$30,648,907	$30,648,907
State Aid - Retroactive Payment	$3,200,000	$1,865,161	- $1,348,917
Fund Balance	$1,800,000	$2,370,000	+ $570,000
Interest Income	$1,000,000	$1,000,000
Other	$1,180,230	$1,166,152	- $14,078*
Total	$37,829137	$37,050,220	- $778,917

* Result of discrepancies in reports associated with the costs of self-supporting programs.

After reviewing the debacle of the revised budget, the Waking Bear has several proclamations of its own to make. We propose that the:

• Word "austerity" was very carefully avoided at the meeting.
• Efforts to, first, add and now remove costs for self-sustaining programs from the revenues shows a propensity on the part of the administrator to confuse the voters.
• "Misunderstanding" around here is the Administrator's. He seems unable to grasp the affects of his own actions and the public's accurate perception that the May 16th budget increase of 12 1/2%, his revisionist 11.4% and his recent proposal of 9.47% have all been TOO high.
• Presentation of another high increase ignores the mandate of the public in defeating the earlier budget.
• District's budget proposal neither clearly or accurately reflect revenues.
• Recently distributed documents suggest a manipulation of the revenues to imply lower than realized incomes.
• Comparisons of both budgets suggest the availability of $778,917 not accounted for in the revenues. Missing is the difference of $14,078 between the two published estimates for the self-sustained programs AND the $764,839 reallocated to the "absence reserve fund." Neither is any longer posted as income.
• Mere perception of chicanery makes cynics of us all.
• Their accounting reallocation may indicate that simular "gold mines" lie distributed throughout the hundreds of line items present in the budget.
• Those moneys could be used to reduce still further the tax levy and proposed budget by at least $778,917.
• Reduction of the tax levy and budget numbers by that amount alone would produce a levy of [$3,155,472 - $778,917 ] of $2,376,555 or +4.20%, down from the overall 5.58% increase of the district's proposal. AND, it would lower the budget increase [ $8,367,692 - $778,917 ] to $7,588,775 or +8.59%, down from the 9.47% recommended by the Superintendent.
• Despite the decrease, such a budget, amounting to a reduced total of $95,926,763, is still far too high.
• The Board of Education's trimming of the fat built into virtually all departments would provide an enormous start to the process of returning school finance to a level of benefit to, as Hillary would so elequently say, "the entire village."
• Implementation of a budget lower than last year's $88.4 million would be nice. Don't you think?