Today we'll explore the WEAC insurance companies called WEA Insurance Group.

The WEA Insurance Group is composed of five organizations:

• WEA Insurance Trust
• WEA Insurance Corporation
• WEA Tax Sheltered Annuity Trust
• WEAC Member Benefit Trust
• WEA Property & Casualty Insurance Company

These organizations are used to provide coverages such as health insurance, dental insurance, long term disability insurance, long term care insurance, automobile insurance, homeowners insurance and tax-sheltered annuities.

This is a spectacular picture from the WEA Trust that was created in 1970 with initial capitalization of $5,000 that was provided by WEAC.  By 1977, this Trust had become the thirteenth largest health insurer in Wisconsin.  By 1989, it employed 140 people, and now employs some 500 people and serves over 200,000 public school employees and family members.

It, as is its parent, is the 800 lb. gorilla so far as insurers providing coverage to school districts in Wisconsin.  It takes pride in the ways in which it developed new coverages for its members and in its record of few member complaints.

Among the breakthroughs it claims credit for are these:

• The trust was the first in the state to offer a disability plan that replaced 90% of a disabled employee's income.  (Typical insurance policies offer up to two-thirds of the employee's compensation to encourage those who are able to return to work as soon as possible, and to help hold insurance premium cost down for employers.)
• The Trust was the first insurer in Wisconsin to cover transplants as a standard benefit.  (Such breakthroughs have had to add costs to these plans that caused increases in premiums to employers.  Most insurers were hesitant to offer such coverage unless and until forced to do so by state mandate since they would've been priced uncompetitively with other insurers.)
• The Trust health plan covered psychiatric and chiropractic services "long before the law required insurance companies to offer such benefits".  (Again, we see marketplace differentiation that made it nearly impossible for other insurers to compete for school district business while it made the employers pay more due to these increased levels of service.)

We discussed Jane Doe's coverage cost to the district in a recent Blog.  Jane's cost to the district was $19,279 during the most recent school year, and she paid another 3% of the premium from her pocket as her contribution toward that cost.  Given the coming school year and plan changes that have been made by WEA Insurance Trust, the cost to the district for the most comparable program will go up to some $22,400 for an increase of about 16% in its cost.  (This is contrasted with an average increase in Wisconsin for other employers of about 4% this year according to a survey by the Mercer consulting firm released today.)

That same announcement based on the Mercer survey pointed out that $1,000 deductibles are now commonplace across America.  I would be amazed if a single school district in Wisconsin could be identified that has such a deductible in place.  Premium sharing by employees is often done on a 25%-75% or a 50%-50% basis in Wisconsin's workplaces, but in Jane's case there is a 3%-97% sharing arrangement.  It is not at all uncommon for employees of firms with fewer than 50 employees to have no health insurance coverage provided by their employer today.  That percentage is in the range of 50% to 60% in Wisconsin today.

WEA Insurance Trust points to its success with the following statistics:

• Health plan enrollment was 138,024 for 2007, or 71% of eligible school districts.
• Dental plan enrollment was 149,961 for 2007, or 78% of eligible school districts.
• Long term disability enrollment was 60,063 for 2007, or 75% of eligible school districts.
• Life plan enrollment was 36,237 for 2007, or 46% of eligible school districts.
• Long term care enrollment was 21,251 in 2007, or 23% of eligible school districts.

This is what the insurance industry calls "penetration" of a marketplace, and it points to the dominance that WEAC has in negotiating on behalf of its insurance companies.  I have spoken with people who have attempted to compete against the WEAC/WEA Insurance Trust insurance programs.  They have made presentations to Boards showing significant decreases with relatively little in the way of plan benefit reductions and few are ever successful in getting the business.  The union dominates this world.  Some question why the teachers would permit this to happen since the premium costs impact their pay due to the QEO rules, but I suspect any teacher who would voice his or her concern might feel uncomfortable in his or her peer group as the result.  And, it is great if you're in the cat bird's seat with the 'Cadillac' coverage.

If you read yesterday's piece, you may've noted that WEAC has universal health care as one of its legislative goals.  That would be great since they could then shift costs to all the state's citizens instead of just to those citizens in a district they provide coverage for.  And, most interesting of all is this overlooked fact:  WEAC had already obtained favorable treatment for its members in the Healthy Wisconsin program that was defeated last year.  Universal health care is great but they must still have better coverage for their members...and the party in control of state government was willing to cause that to happen.

Some have questioned the people costs of a school district but this kind of information helps us better understand where some of those costs originate. 

I want to shift the focus now to the Wisconsin Education Association Council, or WEAC as it is commonly known.  Following this, we'll look at the WEAC affiliate that delivers health and other insurance coverages.

WEAC is among the state's 800 lb. gorillas so far as labor organizations are concerned.  It touts having some 98,000 members.  Its history shows a start in 1853, some 8 years after Wisconsin became a state.  It became known as WEAC in 1972 following adoption of collective bargaining laws for public employees in Wisconsin.

WEAC represents the following segments of education today: teachers, education support professionals, custodians, university students, state education employees, paraprofessionals, retired education support professionals, retired educators, library media specialists (one of whom, Mary Bell, is the current WEAC President), nutrition employees, school safety personnel, Wisconsin Technical College faculty and support staff, clerical staff, counselors, secretaries, teacher aides, bus drivers, cooks and state-employed education and information professionals.

WEAC's structure begins at the local level with the local unions such as the Germantown Education Association (GEA).

The local unions are members of a unified services unit, or UniServe unit, in their local area.  That unit includes the professionals required to support the locals, and is typically limited to some 1,200 to 1,500 individual union members.  Five of the largest school districts have their own UniServ units (Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay).  The staffs of each UniServ provide locals with collective bargaining, member rights, public relations, professional development, and political action assistance.

The UniServ entities are tied to WEAC in Madison and WEAC is a member of the National Education Association, or NEA located in Washington, D.C.

It is easy to see that this organization is very well developed for the functions it has carved out for itself.  That is among the reasons that education is such an effective political force.  I have made earlier references to the fact that WEAC has spent millions of dollars to assure an attentive audience in the halls of Wisconsin government and in the Governor's mansion.

WEAC has identified its major initiatives for the period 2008-2010 and those are:

School Funding  They state: "It is evident that school funding is broken.  It is at the center of discussion from local to local.  The WEAC Board of Directors has identified measures of success for school funding reform, and they are offering a comprehensive education to kids and fair compensation for members."

Health Care  They state:  "We know that under the Qualified Economic Offer we've been sacrificing salary increases for health insurance.  But WEAC's commitment to health care reform is much bigger.  We care deeply for kids and their families because we all know that health care is also a learning issue."

Professional Development & Licensure  They state:  "Educators are required to focus more attention than ever on licensing and professional development, and WEAC is stepping up to provide quality support and services.  You are the best person to manage your professional development, with support from your union and financing from your district."

Achievement Gaps  They state:  "This issue is very close to the hearts of WEAC members.  The frustration of not being able to meet the needs of all our students drives us to do more - demanding needed resources and bringing the issue forward into a public conversation.  We will continue our work to involve communities, corporations and government in closing the achievement gap."

Membership  They state:  "We are listening to what you need and value, and connecting your union to your daily work.  We are focusing on groups who are already organized - and those who are not yet - in order to fulfill the promise of public education for future generations."

I'll close this piece with the 2009-2010 WEAC legislative agenda.  Their printed material says:

"WEAC Supports Legislation To:

• Repeal the Qualified Economic Offer law.
• Repeal revenue caps.
• Make preparation time for educators a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.
• Increase funding for SAGE to provide $2,500 per low income pupil beginning in the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
• Implement voucher accountability.
• Make attendance of 5-year-old kindergarten mandatory and a prerequisite to admission to first grade.
• Treat education support professionals the same as teachers under the Wisconsin Retirement System in terms of qualifying for coverage and for early retirement calculations.
• Establish WTCS pay equity by requiring that the salary and fringe benefits of part-time technical college instructors be prorated based on the salary and fringe benefits of full-time staff.
• Create a loan forgiveness program for teaching math, science, special education and ELL in high-poverty districts.
• Repeal residency requirements.
• Provide a tax deduction for non-reimbursed classroom purchases.
• Adopt the 'Wisconsin Indoor Environmental Quality in Schools Act' for public school buildings.
• Require school boards to adopt anti-bullying policies.
• Allow parents to take leave time from work to attend school conferences and activities."

~~~~~~~~~~

Several things jump out at me as I write this but I'll use another piece to explore those.  The one major thing that occurs is that virtually everything about WEAC means higher costs of education which translates into restructuring school financing laws and that will ultimately translate into more tax dollars.

The angst that followed the election concerning the defeat of the referenda items has subsided a bit.  I want to explore the whole subject of education in our community and state, and have been discussing many issues with those involved including school board members from communities in Wisconsin, educators and taxpayers.  I have no idea how long this series will run, but the input of the citizenry is important and I hope this might provoke some additional rational discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~

I was off the mark on the qualified economic offer (QEO) when I referred to it as the maximum amount that could be provided to teachers in the combination of salary and benefits.  The QEO was instituted in 1993 and replaced the then mediation and arbitration system,  It provided that school boards providing at least 3.8% increases of salary and benefits combined would be protected from binding arbitration which had been problematic for school districts up to that time.  In this sense, the QEO is the minimum and usually the maximum.

There are teachers/former teachers who would admit that the QEO has served to protect the jobs of teachers that might otherwise have been cut in the old binding arbitration days since the arbitrators could assess whatever they felt was appropriate in terms of combined increases without regard to the district's ability to pay the added load.

Similarly, those people would also indicate that rescission of the current QEO rules and their replacement with mediation/arbitration, as the governor has tried to gain over the past several budgets, would probably cause teacher terminations since the proposed mediation/arbitration language has been moot on the subject of districts' ability to pay.  That leads, I suspect, to some of the 'scare' tactics citizens face whenever teachers' compensation is debated.  We almost always hear of the 'programs that will have to be ended if...' there were to be limits to increases proposed.  Those debates seldom, if ever, are concerned with actual reductions, but almost always with limits to the amounts of increases.

The cost of healthcare has played a significant part in the rising cost of education.  The 3.8% increase has to cover the cost of benefits and compensation.  If the health premium increases in double-digits annually, that translates into relatively little remaining for salary increases.  In the unregulated world that most of us occupy, the employer makes the decisions and enforces those decisions.  That world does not exist in education.

So, it is possible to extrapolate that the removal of QEO and its replacement with mediation/arbitration, without consideration for a district's ability to pay, could result in teacher losses, increased class sizes and some issues surrounding the nebulous issue of 'quality of education'.  That issue is nebulous in that it is poorly defined on a consistent basis.  It seems that whenever we get into those discussions, the achievement side becomes dynamic so that it is never quite possible to gather information permitting solid decision-making to occur.  Cause and effect are difficult to equate in those discussions.  That coupled with the emotional response that comes very quickly from one or both sides fairly well suggests that we'll not get to a good, solid, well-informed decision.

Under our current rules, after the 3.8% has been granted by the district, and that is not acceptable to the teachers, a mediator is brought in to attempt to help the sides find common ground.  If neither side is willing to give ground, the mediator can declare an impasse and the 3.8% offer is put into place with no further negotiation.  This has tilted the equation to the district's side and it has been that way since QEO was created.  It is understandable that teachers would find this 'unfair' even though you and me might think 3.8% was a pretty fair increase...especially if we've not received an increase for awhile...or if we've lost our job due to cutbacks.

Next time, we'll look at some hypotheticals that put some numbers in place.

I had intended to scan a copy of the sample ballot for Germantown however that wasn't sufficiently legible.  So, we'll list the offices for which there are candidate selections to be made by all of us who are registered to vote in the village.

You may elect to vote a straight ticket including, in the order found on the ballot:

• Democratic
• Republican
• Wisconsin Green
• Libertarian

The race for President and Vice President, in the order found on the ballot:

• Barack Obama/Joe Biden (Democratic)
• John McCain/Sarah Palin (Republican)
• Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente (Wisconsin Green)
• Bob Barr/Wayne A. Root (Libertarian)
• Brian Moore/Stewart A. Alexander (Socialist Party USA)
• Gloria LaRiva/Robert Moses (Party for Socialism, & Liberation)
• Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez (Independent)
• Chuck Baldwin/Darrell L. Castle (Constitution Party)
• Jeffrey J. Wamboldt/David J. Klimisch (We, the People)
• Write-in________________

Representative in Congress District 5, in the order found on the ballot:

• F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Republican)
• Robert R. Raymond (Independent)
• Write-in________________

State Senator District 8, in the order found on the ballot:

• Sheldon A. Wasserman (Democratic)
• Alberta Darling (Republican)
• Write-in________________

Representative to the Assembly District 24, in the order found on the ballot:

• Charlene S. Brady (Democratic)
• Dan Knodl (Republican)
• Write-in________________

District Attorney:

• Todd K. Martens (Republican)
• Write-in________________

County Clerk:

• Brenda J. Jaszewski (Republican)
• Write-in_________________

Treasurer:

• Janice Gettelman (Republican)
• Write-in_________________

Register of Deeds:

• Sharon Martin (Republican)
• Write-in_________________

Referendum - Germantown School District

Question #1:

Shall the following Initial Resolution be approved?

INITIAL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $22,500,000

BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of the Germantown School District, Washington County, Wisconsin that there shall be issued pursuant to Chapter 67 of the Wisconsin Statutes, general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $22,500,000 for the public purpose of paying the cost of constructing a new elementary school on school district property next to Kinderberg Park; technology, safety and security initiatives District wide; and acquiring furnishings, fixtures and equipment.

Yes ____

No   ____

Question #2

Shall the following Resolution be approved?

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET TO EXCEED REVENUE LIMIT BY $500,000

FOR RECURRING PURPOSES

BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of the Germantown School District, Washington County, Wisconsin that the revenues included in the School District budget for the 2010-2011 school year and thereafter be authorized to exceed the revenue limit specified in Section 121.91, Wisconsin Statutes, by $500,000 a year, for recurring purposes consisting of costs associated with the new elementary school.

Yes ____

No   ____

~~~~~~~~~~

The ballot is two-sided as you would expect from the many questions.

Board of Education Meeting Review:

The agenda item concerning the secession petition involved some back and forth amongst board members.  Mr. Warnimont pointed out that the Board was already on record with its action of September 24, 2007 to the effect that the secession petition would go forward.  There was some discussion as to which district would be preferable to MATC.  Mr. Bowe indicated that his position favoring WCTC would probably change given new information he had developed.  Among the reasons was the indication that fire fighters seemed to favor the program offered by MPTC over that offered by WCTC.  Mr. Warnimont indicated that he remained in favor of WCTC based on his analysis.

The long and the short of this discussion and the ensuing vote is this:  The Board will have the petition in its hands by the meeting on September 8th, will make its final decision on desired district and will proceed with the filing prior to the deadline established by the Technical College System.

There was some consternation amongst Board members that they were being castigated in the press for having delayed this process.  It was pointed out that, given the Technical College System process, filing last year or filing this year prior to the deadline would have no effect on the actual date the secession could occur if approved.  The date of such a change, if approved, is set forth and is inflexible.

Discussion concerning the building referendum issue included a review of the findings from the recent survey.  There were 11,647 pieces mailed to district homes, and a response rate of some 15% had been logged.  This was felt to be a good return at a total cost of $4,200.  The results seemed to echo the election results in terms of the number in favor and the number opposed.

Mr. Warnimont indicated that recent reviews of the cost changes since the referendum was defeated showed an overall increase of about 20% if no changes were made to the plan as presented earlier.  This increase was caused by the general increase in prices being felt in most sectors of the economy.

If I had to guess as to what direction the Board will take regarding the referendum, I would expect that we'll not see the question on the ballot again until possibly in the spring of 2009.  I would also expect that the proposal for the elementary building will have been revised.

~~~~~~~~~~

Tax Knowledge Test Answers:

Remember that the questions asked for a true or false answer.

• Property taxes pay for most of the costs of the K-12 public schools in Wisconsin.
• False.  The most recent data we have available states that in 2004-05, gross property taxes paid for 38% of school districts' budgets in Wisconsin.  During that same period, inter-governmental aid paid for 56% of school districts' budgets.  The public opinion survey showed that 65% of survey respondents believed that property taxes fund the majority of costs for public K-12 education.
• Wisconsin taxpayers pay more of their personal income toward state and local taxes today than they did 10 years ago.
• False.  In 1994, the Wisconsin tax burden as a percent of personal income was 13.5%.  The most recent data available is for 2006; that year, Wisconsin taxpayers paid 11.6% of their income in taxes.  The public opinion survey found that 78% of respondents believed the statement was true.
• Wisconsin collects more money from sales taxes than it does from gasoline taxes and corporate taxes combined.
• True.  In 2007, sales tax accounted for 19% of all state and local taxes collected.  Corporate and gasoline taxes accounted for a total of 9% combined.  The public opinion survey found that only 26% of respondents believed the statement was true, while 35% believed the statement was false.

 (This courtesy of The Wisconsin Way.)

Test Your Tax Knowledge... 

A group named The Wisconsin Way sent an email today that had the following test of tax knowledge.  I'll re-publish this tomorrow with the answers added so you can check yours.

True or False:

1. Property taxes pay for most of the costs of the K-12 public schools in Wisconsin.
2. Wisconsin taxpayers pay more of their personal income toward state and local taxes today than they did 10 years ago.
3. Wisconsin collects more money from sales taxes than it does from gasoline taxes and corporate taxes combined.

~~~~~~~~~~

School Board Meeting Tonight...

The Board of Education meeting convenes at 7:00 PM tonight in the District Administrative Offices and agenda item VIII. B. "Discussion with appropriate action regarding secession from the MATC district" is included under "Unfinished Business".

This is an important topic and I'll cover the discussion and any public action tomorrow in another Village Buzz edition.

~~~~~~~~~~

Sendik's: Beehive of activity...

If you've not been past the new Sendik's facility during the day, it is a beehive of activity.  The crews working on this project have consumed most of the parking spaces in front of the building.  If they don't make their target opening date, it won't be for lack of trying!

~~~~~~~~~~

Thomas Square Bread Bagels...

Believe it or not, the George Weston Bakeries company responded by mail to my question about Thomas Square Bread Bagels.  Unfortunately, they told me that these are not currently available apparently anywhere in the U.S.  They didn't say 'never', so I'll continue to hope.  I wonder what the problem is that is keeping those off the market.  They sold very quickly.  Could it be that they stepped on another firm's exclusive process or something along those lines?  Or, is the cost of production so great today that they simply didn't think they could sell them?

If you find out, please let me know.

The Journal Sentinel carried an article this morning about the Practical Nurse program offered by MATC.  This program has been on probation for some time and that continues.  Another evaluation visit is scheduled for the Fall of this year.

Low rates of graduation apparently had prompted the probationary status and the state Board of Nursing has been carefully monitoring the progress or lack thereof at MATC in this program.

Dessie Levy was quoted as saying, "When you talk about implementing standards, our (graduation rate) will reflect a decline because we haven't had any standards (in the past).  She is Dean of Health Occupations for MATC.

WCTC has a similar program and it isn't on probation from all indications.  I was unsuccessful in contacting the Associate Dean at WCTC today, but there is no indication on the state Board of Nursing's website that WCTC is anything but in compliance and good standing.

We have been told repeatedly that our secession petition cannot simply focus on tax rates because apparently the Technical College System isn't concerned about the waste of our money.  We certainly can focus on substandard performance which seems to be the case in this program.

Students who have failed in this endeavor believe the fault lies with MATC and the curriculum.  Stephanie Wren was quoted as saying, "They just didn't prepare us, and I believe they set us up for failure.  When you have that much of your class failing, it seems like there's something wrong at that point."

How many other instances of low standards or no standards are there within MATC?

Another reason to petition for secession and permission to become part of the WCTC district in my opinion.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel featured an editorial this morning concerning the possibility that Germantown will pursue the secession effort from the Milwaukee Area Technical College district.  They spoke of 'outreach' by MATC and re-established their position that Germantown should remain in the MATC district.

The 'outreach' they spoke of consisted of the appointment of Victor Rossetti (then Superintendent of Germantown Schools) to a MATC Board vacancy, meetings held with Germantown officials, contribution of laptops to the library and a couple of 'free' programs.

This so-called 'outreach' seemed a lot like a feeble attempt to head off an embarrassing situation.  The addition of Mr. Rossetti did nothing to alter the course of MATC.  It continues to be, in my opinion, an out-of-control institution that answers to no one.  Germantown pays millions annually and we are supposed to take thirty laptops and shut our collective mouth.

The editors finally get to the last paragraph of this piece where they seem to catch a glimmer of a major reason for our angst.  They state, "And our guess is that until MATC does something to reduce its tax levy, not only will Germantown's efforts continue, but other communities may also start seriously considering secession."

The school board is scheduled to discuss this subject tonight.  I hope that it moves with all deliberate speed to push the secession from MATC.

MATC has now ended the suspense.  Whew!  It has officially increased its tax take by the 4.9% that it miraculously managed to get down to from the original 'straw man' of 6.4%.  This codifies the fact that MATC's appetite for tax dollars has risen by some 30% over the past five years.  MATC's leadership, if it can be called that without demeaning the word, just can't seem to understand that, while it is impervious to the wants and needs of the citizenry it serves, it really has permitted its reach to exceed our grasp.

MATC strikes me as an iceberg looking for a ship to sink.  It is floating along with the tip showing while the bulk of the 'bloat' lies just under the waterline, out of sight and, too often, out of mind.  Until it hits the ship of taxpayers yet again.  The taxpayers on this 'ship of fools' have finally come to understand, at least in Germantown, that they would be better-served if they were permitted to disembark from the current ship that continues to be victimized by the MATC iceberg...year after year after year after year!

That disembarkation is, however, contingent on so many disparate factors as to seem nearly unachievable.  First and foremost is that failure to make the petition to the state technical college board seeking a move from MATC to another contiguous tech college district renders all the other points moot.  If that is filed, then we wait and see what the august state tech college board members decide is to be our fate.  The last such application was made in 2004 and was denied.  That doesn't necessarily mean that this petition would suffer the same fate...but it is probably a decent precursor.  The only other successful action of this nature involved Germantown's petition to be moved into the MATC district back in the early 1970s.  (Ironic, isn't it?)

Back to the basics, however.  This rate of increase could've been far better controlled if the governing board for MATC were subject to re-election.  It isn't.  It is subject only to the parochial appointment desires of MATC.  Talk about a great deal, huh?  If I'm going to be governed by someone, I'd love the opportunity to pick the person without any outside interference over things such as how effective they'd be in administering their responsibilities.  If I 'accidentally' picked someone that was in lock-step with my positions and goals, could I possibly be faulted?  Sure, but it would be meaningless because no one could do anything about it except maybe move away to escape.

Maybe more to the point, I could've used the euphemism of a polar ice mass, a glacier, grinding everything in its path into submission.  Pretty soon there'll be nothing left here to tax.  It'll have been destroyed by the taxes rendered.

I guess the good news is that you can't tax the same dollar for more than 100 cents, so there is some ultimate end point.  Yet, there are so many taxes being levied against each of our dollars that we get less and less while everything costs us more and more.

Maybe, IF we pursue the change in tech college districts, and IF the state tech college board approves, we can rid ourselves of MATC President Cole, his board and his kingdom of fire-breathing dragons that burn everything of value they can identify in their domain.

I believe a full scale audit of that institution is called for and I believe one or more of our elected officials at the state level needs to pick up that banner and carry it high for all to see.  This is way past the point of being mere Blog fodder, although it sure has been good for that!

The move toward filing the documents necessary to seek secession from the Milwaukee Area Technical College tax district has begun to draw some debate amongst the politicos in Germantown.

Village President Kempinski has been quoted as being concerned with the seemingly slow movement in this process, and School Board President Erdmann says that we shouldn't worry because it is being taken up in July for ultimate filing in August.

Some have pointed to the earlier appointment of Superintendent Victor Rossetti as the death blow to any secession movement since Germantown is now directly represented on the MATC Board.

Mr. Rossetti will serve his last day as superintendent on June 30th.  What happens then?  Does he have to step down or is he permitted to serve out his term since he is then a 'former' superintendent.  What happens if he moves from the MATC district?  Is he immediately susceptible to removal if he doesn't resign?

Interesting questions all.  I have written earlier of some concern since the MATC discussion had been quiet for a seemingly long period of time.  Then we were advised that we shouldn't worry since the school board would resume its discussion in July. 

We are still a long way from the actual filing of documents and then we must await the decision of the state technical college board that is due within ninety days of the filing.  Then, even if we were to be successful...and that is far from a certainty...the actual secession wouldn't occur until the start of a new fiscal period for technical colleges.

And, of course, while this all plays out, we are being over-taxed and under-served by the money-eating monster that we know as MATC.

What we don't need are any artificial obstacles cropping up along the pathway to change.

We are, by all signs, involved in an oil cost run-up driven by demand being greater than supply.  It is exacerbated for us Americans because our monetary policy has seen an intentional softening of the dollar (our money is worth less than other peoples' money, so it takes more of it to buy a barrel of crude oil).  I paid $4.20 per gallon yesterday with the price of crude oil standing at about $130 +/- per barrel.  Predictions of crude oil prices of $150 per barrel or more are seen or heard regularly now.  And, the cost of oil could well be higher than that by year-end.

How did we get to this point?  We got there by congressional law making, by presidents rolling over and signing those bills, and by our country's increasing needs/demand for gasoline and diesel fuel.  Why would we permit ourselves to become part of such a quagmire?

Politics!  Politics played by those on both sides of the aisle.  Conservatives seem to have lost their voices.  Liberals never seem to lose their voices.

Laws were re-written more than thirty years ago to make it nearly impossible for a new refinery to be built.  Those were the result of congress being rolled by the environmentalists and presidents either believing the rhetoric of the day or fearing the backlash should they stand up to the rhetoric.  This has continued to this very day.  We are forbidden from drilling within 200 miles of the California and Florida coastlines but the Chinese are already doing so as we sit on our thumbs.  We are unable to pursue the shale oil deposits that span our northern plains and southwestern states.  We have ample untapped resources that are readily available but our laws don't permit us to make use of those resources.

We see the 'global warming' group and the 'environmentalist group' driving our economy into the ground...and we have not found the moral outrage/courage to stand up to them and say "no more"!  We could easily build new refineries in any number of locations around our country but we're not permitted to do so.  We know how to drill and refine today without ruining our world.  It takes from 6 to 10 years to bring a new refinery on-line so the time to have declared a moratorium on the rules that made it impossible to build new refining capacity has come and gone.  But, the typical congressional response of "that will take ten years" should remind us that if we don't roll back those silly laws today, it'll take ten years from whenever we do roll back those silly laws.  The time to begin is now, not next week or next month.

We witnessed the ridiculous 'hearings' held by congress in the past few weeks.  We watched as Sen. Herb Kohl embarrassed himself by chiding the 'big bad oil companies' for making a profit.  He is a former businessman who certainly understands that profit must be derived in order for businesses to exist and grow.  He knew how that worked when he ran Kohl's Food Stores.  He certainly must have some comprehension as the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks.  His statement to the oil company executives that their profits didn't seem fair gives one a lot of insight.  He knows better but he will play/pander to the crowd he favors.  He 'feels' as do most liberals.  He doesn't necessarily reason.  He has his millions, so he can set out to control everyone else who aspires to similar success.

Sen. Kohl is but one of the 535 members of congress.  Too many of those men and women are too intent on keeping their offices to actually vote the way they probably know they should.  You have probably heard the old phrase that states you must "go along to get along".  That should be inscribed over the doorways leading to the House and the Senate chambers since it is the rule that is followed by the vast majority of people who walk through those portals.  That is true on the national stage, the state stage and the local stage.

The people who go to Washington and who do not give in and play by the Washingtonian rules are few and very far between.

Whose fault is this dilemma in the final analysis?  Yours and mine. 

We're the men and women who have permitted this to happen.  We don't vote in the House or the Senate, but we do elect those who do...and we do not seem to unelect people very often once they've gotten into office.  Rep. Steve Kagen (D) from the Appleton area stands for re-election this November.  He is at his most defeatable point historically.  If he survives the first re-election campaign and keeps his seat, he is likely to be in that seat for so long as he desires without regard to how he votes or doesn't vote.

We're so unconcerned about our vote, it seems, that we don't even think voting is sacrosanct enough to require valid photo identification before we're permitted to cast a ballot. 

So, all this angst has been brought to us by us.  Remember that the next time you buy gasoline or diesel fuel.  Remember that the next time you go to the grocery store and try to make your food budget stretch.  Remember that when you ponder whether or not you'll be able to take a vacation this year, or buy new school clothing for your children, or go out for a fish fry.  Remember that when you try to stretch your retirement income to cover your basic needs.

And, when you've gotten yourself all 'cranked up', if that happens, make a resolution to get involved and stay involved and to talk with your elected representatives at every level of government and let them know what you think and what you want them to do on your behalf.  And, if they fail you, fire them with your vote at the polling place.

Had you and I done that two decades ago instead of simply going with the flow, maybe we'd not be in the situation we find ourselves in today.

The MATC has developed yet another draft budget after the first such exercise produced the need for a 6.4% property tax increase (see Blog of April 23rd).  At the time of that budget draft, the governor apparently said he would not countenance such an increase.  MATC announced then that it would go back to the old drawing board and see what could be done to get down into the range of 'as little' as a 5.0% to 5.5% property tax increase.

Guess what?  They can now apparently declare victory in this onerous task since the finance committee is only proposing a revised draft budget that would consume another 4.9% increase in property taxes.  The proposed draft will come to a vote by the full board on May 27th.

MATC has developed budgets since 2004 that will have caused property tax increases of more than 30% if this draft is ultimately approved.

Has your personal income increased by 30% in the past four years?  Has your savings account grown by 30% in the past four years?  Has yours become a single income family instead of a dual income family in the past four years?  I doubt it.  But, if so, congratulations!  Even with such an increase, if that has happened for you, I'll wager that you have better places to put your hard-earned money.

The MATC finance committee says it has cut all it could cut from the budget.  Jeannette Bell, committee member and former West Allis mayor, was in favor of not only this 4.9% property tax increase, but also favors reducing the reserve account held by MATC which has been done as part of this draft. 

People costs are budgeted to increase significantly.  Wages and salaries will go up about $1.5 million.  Health care costs will rise by some $2 million.  Other 'fringe' benefits will add another $4.5 million, including  $2 million required to bring the recognition of accrued benefits onto the MATC books like any other 'business' must do today.  That is $2 million of 'funny money'; where else would we find accounting tricks employed if we were to subject this institution to the standards maintained by businesses?

I cannot accept the statement that MATC has cut 'everything possible' and still needs this kind of increase budget over budget.  The paragraph above suggests to me that people costs are way too high, and a very quick way to achieve reductions there is to have fewer people.  Maybe MATC should think about outsourcing certain functions.  Maybe they should think about 'tough love' negotiations with union representatives.  There are or ought to be limits even for tax-funded entities.

Maybe MATC needs to review its class demand and determine the bottom third by attendance and end those classes.  If there is insufficient demand, there is apparently not an identifiable 'significant' need.  MATC cannot be providing services to a market that doesn't exist in sufficient numbers to show demand.  That would free up space for other uses, and it would, or should, enable staff cuts that will reduce costs.

It is impossible to forget, in this debate over MATC, that there is a very real problem with the Milwaukee schools system and we must recognize that some of MATC's costs should rightfully be paid for by the Milwaukee school system since MATC is mopping up after that dismal performance.  Adult high school education classes and GED classes are an example of how the public education structure in Milwaukee fails its students and the residents of the community.  Interestingly enough, this may well be an intended consequence rather than an unintended consequence.  It gets non-Milwaukee taxpayers to pay more of the Milwaukee education costs than is already done through state tax distribution formula.

Finally, I suggest once again that MATC needs to clean up its many acts.  It needs to get out of the failed business incubator function.  It needs to quit building physical monuments to itself and its leaders.  It needs to look at sale and lease-back arrangements.  It needs to reduce staff. 

Frankly, it is becoming more and more apparent that significant leadership changes may be required, as well.  MATC leadership seems to be ignorant of the public's needs.  This is an institution answerable to no one other than the governor through his ability to appoint members to the state technical college board.  The state legislature and the governor must act to bring this renegade system under absolute control.  There must be a change in the manner in which the state board and the district boards are created; voters need to determine who sits on those boards.  The current incestuous approach simply doesn't work...for anyone other than the leaders and those who sit on the rubber stamp boards.

All this brings me to the next obvious question:  Where do we stand in the quest for permission to move to another technical college district?  There seems to have been a long delay in the process; maybe it is justified.  I hope it doesn't mean that the movement has been quietly put to sleep.

We've gone a long time between Blogs centering on MATC, but it is again time to take a critical look.  A 'headline' from some time ago suggested that MATC just can't help itself.  That seems to be the case.  They certainly don't seek out the kind of news coverage they tend to generate.  No organization would want to be in this type of 'limelight' and yet they do it to themselves over and over and over again.

Yesterday we learned that poor old MATC was being chastised by the 'state' for having proposed a budget that would require a property tax increase of some 6.4%.  It seems that even Governor Doyle thought that was too high, and that is going some when you think about all the tax increases and fee increases he has dumped in our laps.

So, having had their knuckles rapped with a ruler, they are being forced to the unthinkable...they may have to make some cuts in their expenses!!

They are now talking about cuts that will get the property tax increase down to as little as 5% to 5.5%.  These people do not live in the world that you and I populate.  They must breath some other life giving gas other than oxygen.  Maybe they're actually in a different orbit.  It seems obvious that they are not bound by the same life rules that we, the taxpayers, are bound to follow.

Hammering at an old theme again, if you and I have too little income for our expense load, we usually will look at our expense first and make the necessary adjustments.  In the world occupied by MATC, it seems that you first look at raising your revenue before you even give any thought to reductions in budget.

An article today centers upon the 'incubator boondoggle' that MATC created for itself many years ago.  We've Blogged about that before, as well.  Some of the businesses aren't real businesses with any hope of survival in the real world.  Many are considerably behind in their rent payments.  Now MATC is looking at actually closing or modifying the two incubators but it may have to give some money to those businesses that are to be displaced apparently according to some language in their agreement with each.  I've not seen those agreements, but I can't imagine that even MATC would give money away, much of it probably to those same businesses that are behind in their rent payments, if it were not bound to do so by the agreements.  Let's hope that MATC is sharp enough to hold back funds from this payment to at least recover the rental payments owed to it and to us taxpayers.

I have a high degree of difficulty in imagining that there is nothing else that can be cut out of the MATC budget.  How is it that MATC will cut expenses and still have to take us taxpayers to the cleaners for 5% to 5.5% more property taxes than we paid last time?  There are things that can be cut.  Let's talk about staff positions to begin with.  Let's look at the benefits next.  Let's review the travel expenses; it seems to me that was sort of a bloated area the last time we went down this pathway.  Maybe they need to sell off property and lease back the portions they actually need.  Maybe they need to shake up the status quo and actually take some real action like ending the deal with the current 'King' and getting a replacement that doesn't suffer from such egotism and illogical sense of institutional direction.  The Board should be capable of changing this direction unless it also suffers from something similar.

In the meantime, maybe the petitions to be removed from this system should be filed quickly and the case pressed while this iron is still hot enough to burn some sense into the directors of the state technical college system. 

By the way, Waukesha County Technical College has solidified its budget with a 3% increase in property taxes.  It is in the same geographic area, and faces most of the same issues.  What is the difference?  It seems to be leadership from my perspective.

Governor Doyle signed the bill that permits continued funding of virtual schools, with a relaxed cap on enrollments while a study is being conducted to determine their effectiveness on several different fronts.  This is a temporary 'fix'.

This represents a real victory for those parents who have enrolled their children in these educational institutions and who love the result.  Yes, these are educational 'institutions' even though it is difficult to see the walls.  Yes, the students do seem to thrive in this setting.  Yes, union teachers are involved in the instructional process.  Yes, they do seem more efficient in some ways than the typical brick and mortar schools with which we are all familiar.

But, they are different...and they are frightening to some...and threatening to others.  Certainly some students would not fare well in this environment.  Certainly some teachers would not fare well in such an environment.  So, maybe over the next couple of years, we'll have the opportunity to learn a lot more about this approach to education of our children.

Lest we forget, there is still the drive to end most forms of 'outside the box' education.  California's court system recently held that parents in that state are not fit to teach their children in a 'home school' setting.  Milwaukee Public Schools graduate less than 50% of their students but school choice is not looked upon with favor. 

Our system of education is in a state of flux.  Taxpayers are not happy about spending more money on buildings as we saw recently in Germantown.  Maybe all this will prove to have been part of a healthy debate as to just how our educational system of the future will look and function.

It seems obvious that we do need to have such a debate.  It seems obvious that we do need to get 'outside the box' as we discuss the future of education.  But, how are we going to do this?  Where will this debate be conducted?  Who will participate?  Will this be structured or will it simply be done through the free flow of ideas?  We have much greater communications abilities today than ever before. 

Will the debate be done at community levels, then county and state levels?  Or will it be done at the state level and then be pushed down to the place where education really happens?

Sadly, if there is to be such a debate, it will probably happen at the federal and state levels and be force-fed to the communities.  It will probably be done in courts of law with attorneys crafting the future of our educational system.  It will probably be funded by unions with their own agenda that may or may not look like the agenda of a community or of a parent.

I have no answers to these questions.  It might be better if we simply have a lot of questions and then seek the right answers...rather than to have the answers and then try to make those fit no matter what the questions may be.

It seems to me that we are on the cusp of exciting and frightening times in the world of education.  I hope we citizens and parents are up to the test.

Random thoughts:

• The turn-out by voters in Germantown was reported to be some 34%, as contrasted with the statewide prediction of only about 20%.  That may well be a 'victory' for the group that was pushing its agenda using postcards and telephone calls.  I suspect that this group stimulated a greater turnout than would've otherwise been the case.  That is a good thing.
• It seems though that the voters were not swayed sufficiently so as to follow the suggestions made by this group.  Those who were criticized by this group seem to have fared well enough to win.  Those who were 'favored' by not being attacked by this group didn't fare as well.  Are we likely done with this kind of electioneering in Germantown?  I am admittedly naive, but I'm not that naive.  I expect these tactics will continue to be seen in future Germantown elections.
• The need for some kind of solution to the school crowding in the Germantown district will have to be addressed at some point in the future.  It may be that a scaled down version of the defeated proposition will find its way to a ballot later this year.  If so, I suspect we'll see higher interest rates and increases in all the associated costs so that, even if the total bond issue were to be reduced, the ultimate costs could very well exceed what would've been the case with this issue.  The reported 55% to 45% margin was a bit surprising; I had suspected the issue might have been outvoted by a larger number.  The smaller turn-out obviously included a higher number of voters who favored the referendum.  That might be expected in a non-Presidential election.
• The face of the School Board changes a bit.
• The state Supreme Court race was critical, in my view, and the conservative won albeit by a relatively slim margin.  That bodes well for the state.
• There is a large segment of new members elected to the Washington County Board.  What that will mean can only be determined as we see the outcome of the various issues that will face this new board.  I hope that we will see special attention paid to holding down spending and thus taxes.  Maybe my naivite' is showing again.
• And, the 'Frankenstein Veto' has died at the hands of the voters.  That, also, is a very good thing without regard to which party might control the Governor's Mansion.

All in all, the voters have spoken and our representative form of government is working as was intended.

Wisconsin citizens get the opportunity to vote on whether or not the 'Frankenstein Veto' should be eliminated by constitutional amendment.  This was made possible when the Assembly gave its final approval yesterday. 

The question will appear on the April 1st ballots.

As you'll probably remember, Governor Doyle found letters, numbers and punctuation marks across many pages of the budget to enable him to cobble together a new budget item that transferred some $470,000 from the transportation fund to another pet program that the legislature had not given him.

His spokespersons, of course, decry the elimination of this 'tool' since it gives them the opportunity to protect us from the evil legislature whenever it is misguided from Doyle's perspective.

I often disagree with legislative actions, but I have to believe that we're better off not having the governor armed with this ability.  No matter your feelings about the current governor, do you want future governors to have this kind of a tool?

You will also have the opportunity to help shape the future of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, choose your state senator, vote on the school referendum and school board members, and elect county supervisors and village trustees.  Mark April 1st on your calendar (and ignore the fact that this is also "April Fool's Day').

"Timing of gift questioned" was the headline of Tom Kertscher's column in the morning Journal Sentinel.  That may well be a classic understatement, although I'm sure Mr. Kertscher needs to remain less 'curmudgeonly' than do I.

This is a blatant attempt to grease the skids for the denial of Germantown's soon-to-be-presented petition to the state technical college board.  MATC has not presented "free" computers to any other community and yet it has done so twice now for Germantown.  This coupled with the recent appointment of Germantown's Superintendent to the MATC board certainly shows that MATC is where we need to be sending our money.  This provides the technical college board a 'hidey-hole' from which they can summarily dismiss our petition.

These so-called "free" computers carry a very heavy price in my opinion.  The property tax increase alone to be collected from Germantown citizens will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Let's say, for argument, that the increase in MATC's property tax collection will be $300,000.  If that were the case, then the "free" computers cost only about $15,000 each.  Too tough on MATC?  Okay.  Let's say they'll gather only $200,000.  Then each "free" computer will have only cost us about $10,000.  If we add the historic annual over-payment extracted from us without a voice, the cost is in the millions of dollars for "free" laptop computers.

Then there is this whole question of accountability.  Actually, there is a question as to UNaccountability.  How in the world is it that this frugally-run institution can come up with this kind of money when we didn't even request their assistance?  How is it that this appropriation didn't even require board approval?  How is it that WCTC actually sells its used computers at the end of their useful lives, let alone not giving "free" computers to communities in its district?

It appears this could well be validation that the inmates run this asylum.

No connection?  Please spare us the obvious truth-stretching.  Why else would we receive this largess at this time without knowing it was coming or even having made a request for such consideration?  Of course there is a connection.  To try to convince us otherwise gives us a very real look into the utter disregard with which us taxpayers of Germantown are held. 

We not only have no voice, we deserve no voice because we don't know enough to come in from the cold!

The boards of the school district and village met last night to discuss common issues.  Those common issues included the construction now taking place at Blackwood Creek across from the high school, the joint intent to push secession from the MATC technical college district, and the TIF district revenue shift proposed by the village.

There were no 'fireworks' as some had suggested; there were also no final decisions taken.

Representatives of MATC seemed 'lukewarm' to the TIF transfers, citing the 2003 transfer that they stated had lengthened the TIF district 3 life by two years.  The school board president, Michael Erdmann, discussed the fact that the school district would be able to reduce the tax levy if the transfer were not to occur.  The school district covers more taxing entities than just the village, so those entities need be considered, as well.

Village president Kempinski stated his hope that MATC would not be seeking 'retaliation' (my word) against Germantown's secession movement by not approving the TIF action.  There was no reaction visible on the part of the two MATC representatives when this statement was made, but I'm sure they've had practice.

The MATC secession discussion focused on the need for uniform positions on the part of the school district and the village (both agreed but neither offered to abandon its position) with attorneys for both the village and the school district present and speaking to the boards.  Since there is no haste required (the earliest date for a change in districts would be July 1, 2009 assuming the petition were filed at least ninety days prior to the end of 2008), both sides agreed to form a joint task force and to continue to work the issue. 

Issues that need to be fleshed out include the negative impact to MATC as well as the positive impact to either MPTC or WCTC if Germantown were to move.  The money we send to MATC is a small part of that budget, while the reduced amount that would flow to one of the others would represent a sizable increase to that district.  Beyond this are all the substantive issues concerning educational opportunities in the other districts as contrasted with MATC, and which of the other districts would seem the best potential overall partner. 

My take-away was this: 

I don't think the TIF deal is necessarily a slam dunk, although a new project soon to commence in TIF district 4 carries much promise. 

I continue to be all for the secession but am honestly skeptical as to the ultimate outcome given how everything appears stacked against us.  This is a highly political battle.  My estimate of the odds against our success would be in the range of 10-1, and that is probably being generous to our side.  We're playing with the 'big dogs' now! 

If there were any schisms between the two boards, they were well-controlled, almost to the point of being too saccharin.

The village board and the school board are running on nearly parallel routes as each researches and prepares its petition to be presented to the state technical college board.

They are each in agreement that we need to leave the MATC district for a variety of reasons.

They do not, however, appear to be in agreement about the district to which we'd prefer to be tied.  The village president appears to favor Moraine Park Technical College (even thought the tax rate would be higher) while the school board vote specified Waukesha County Technical College (with the lowest tax rate of the three choices).  I have been told by other trustees that the village president's position has two elements:  He recognizes that we must not be a 'one-trick pony' focused solely on the tax side of the question; and that MPTC appears to be more oriented to working with Germantown on courses that are needed by our businesses.  

Certainly we know that taxes alone will not suffice as the driver for our petitions.  Similarly, there would be little question as to whether MPTC or WCTC would be responsive to our needs. The marketplace is driven by the hirers, not by the educators...except, of course, in the MATC system...but I digress.

The certainty that emerges is this:  If we present a unified position, we stand a better chance of emerging victorious.  If we present a split position, we'll almost assuredly see both petitions rejected.  The state technical college board is not likely to view our petitions very favorably simply based on everything we've been told and have read.  We cannot afford to be anything but fully aligned if we have a hope to prevail.

We need the village board and the school board aligned in their positions.  The differences in apparent positions are not huge.  The 'issues' will resolve themselves if our petitions are approved.  We need alignment, and it seems to me that the village needs to move into full agreement with the school board's stated position. 

It makes sense to move into the district with the lowest tax rate impact when one considers that the other benefits will be equal to the citizens of Germantown and the Germantown Sch