A Few Questions for Our School Board Candidates

In a few short weeks we will elect four school board members. This represents a majority of the entire board. The composition of the board could change dramatically as a result of the election. Keep in mind it is a mid-summer election that generally has very low turnout. As few as 800 votes could be cast in any one district. That means as few as four hundred and one voters will decide who serves on the board. Your vote will count.

School board elections usually get very little attention but I would argue that they might be the most important elected positions over the long term for any community. The health and welfare of a community can be linked directly to the quality of its education system. A strong school board leads to a strong superintendent, that leads to strong principals, that leads to strong teachers, that ultimately leads to strong schools.

With this election in mind I have a few questions (and a little commentary) I would like to ask each candidate. I hope you add to this list and ask your own questions. A school board should be made up of leaders who can help the superintendent develop the vision. In addition, they can help develop the local framework on which the system will be measured. Hopefully these questions can serve as a primer as you think about who you want to support and vote for in a few short weeks.

What is the purpose of the school board? I hope the answer sounds a lot like this: A school board is not another layer of management. A school board’s only employee is the Superintendent of Schools. The Board hires and manages the superintendent by setting the goals for the district (school system) and for the superintendent. It is the superintendent’s responsibility to create the strategies and initiatives necessary to accomplish those goals. The board governs, and the superintendent manages.

Our school system has shown some improvement over the last few years. That is commendable. However, at the end of the day, we are at or near the state average, in the 49th worst state in the country in the country ranked 23rd (among 35 industrialized nations) in overall education. That is nothing to rest on. Every year, LaGrange High, for example, sets a goal for its self — to be the next state champion, number one. Do they reach that goal every year? Of course not, but over time they have developed a program that consistently ranks among the best in the state. Do you think that would happen if their goal each year was to be slightly better than the state average? At the end of the day the team performs better because of a unified and aspirational goal. What is your goal for our system? Specifically, how can we do better? What will you do to significantly improve our performance? Why can’t we be number one?

Based on financial projections the school budget will see deficits for years to come. Declining property values, reduced state funding and increased spending mandates will further erode projected revenues. These reductions will far exceed any cuts to the administrative staff. I am sure every candidate will state they will cut these roles. Every politician cites waste and fraud as the places to cut. However, according to the projections that will not be enough, in fact it will not be close. Given this fact, what areas will you cut to balance the budget? What is off limits? What is needed but we can no longer afford?

At what point, if any, would you consider an increase in the tax millage rate to offset the budget shortfall?

Several of the candidates are proposing a reduction in school property taxes for senior citizens? Do you support this proposal? If so why? One could argue while this is a compassionate thing to do, it is bad policy. Education benefits the entire community. It seems unfair to pick and choose who pays for it. The consumer of education is sporadic (school aged children) but the benefit is a lifetime. Following that logic, would you exclude parents without children? I would argue that the best support government — in this case the school system — can give our senior citizens is a vibrant, growing, low crime community, all of which are direct benefits of a strong education system. The leveraged effect of this type of community would far offset a small reduction in the school tax.

What is the significance of .5 percent? That is one-half of one percent. That is the number of teachers that were terminated for low performance in the years 2010-11. That represents approximately six teachers out of the entire school system of 1,100+ teachers. That number is no fluke. It was .5 percent in the 2009-10 year and only .3 percent in the 2008-09 year. While we have many, outstanding teachers, every organization has employees, in this case teachers that under perform to the extent they must be let go. I would argue no high performing organization has forced turnover that low. Teaching is real time. A child never gets that year back. We must ensure that we put the best teachers possible in front of our students every day. What is your reaction to this number? What would you do as a school board member to remove under performers from the school system?

These are but a few of the difficult issues our school board will face. Each school board member will play a key role in how well we respond to these challenges. This role is much more than ex-teachers, long time members of the community and people with good intentions. It requires outstanding leadership and vision. We have some very capable board members. There are some capable candidates running against them. Now is the time to educate yourself to make an informed decision this July. Our community depends on it.

Published June 21, 2012  LaGrange Daily News


Read more: LaGrange News

Is Harry Reid the Real Problem?

I have found the perfect job.  This job carries great prestige.  It pays well.  It offers amazing retirement benefits.  It affords an enormous staff to do you beckon call.  It allows you to be evaluated once, every six years.  And most importantly, if you don’t like a certain key aspect of your job, you simply don’t have to do it.  Who wouldn’t want a job like that? 

I am talking about the Majority Leader in the United States Senate as fulfilled by Harry Reid.

In full disclosure, during my day job, I am a process consultant.  When I encounter problems at work my first instinct is to see if there is a process problem.  The key is to drill down past the symptoms and find the root cause.  If something is not working, then the question often boils down to two alternatives: Is the process valid and are people following the process? Is the process broken and does it need to be changed?

There is no doubt our political process is not working.  The President and Congress cannot reach a consensus on virtually anything to solve the pressing issues facing our republic.  The question is: are they following the process or does the process need to be changed?  Some say the government is just too big to manage.  Others say we are just too partisan.  I say that neither of those are the root cause. 

Yes the size of the government is daunting.  It is complex and bureaucratic.  That has been the case of every government since the beginning of time.  Besides, what choice do we have?  To say it is unmanageable is to admit defeat.  The size of the government is not the root cause of our problem. It is just a symptom.

The most cited symptom is that the politicians are just too partisan.  I think this too is a red herring.  Yes, it is fair to say we are in a partisan environment.  Part of that is a good thing.  We have partisanship because the country is evenly divided on two competing political philosophies.  However, today’s partisanship pales compared to partisanship in our past.  In the past we had fist fights, duals to the death and slander that would make your skin crawl.  We have always had partisanship and the government still worked.  Partisanship is just another symptom.

I think the root cause is the Senate’s inability to pass a budget.  The budget is the lynch pin in the political process that focuses the resources of the federal government.  Without it, the bureaucracy wanders aimlessly as it has for the last three years with devastating consequences. 

Harry Reid and the Senate he leads have not passed a budget in three years!  Since taking over the House of Representatives the Republicans have passed a budget every year.  The missing step in the process is for the Senate to pass a budget and then the two houses of Congress to reconcile their differences.  This is hard work. It is called governing. It is part of the basic job description. 

Everyone knows that money equals power in Washington.  What is a budget?  A budget is the roadmap for how to spend the money (i.e. power).  Our Founding Fathers were brilliant when they devised the budgetary process. The reconciliation of the people-centric budget (the House) and state-centric budget (at our founding Senators were not elected, rather they were appointed by Governors) brought together two different perspectives on how to spend the money (power).  Once the Congress approved a budget it went to the President for his approval or rejection. All three groups had input and responsibility to get a budget passed and they did so for over two hundred years.

While some things have changed (like the election of Senators) the process still works.  The problem is Mr. Reid refuses to follow the process.  The House has passed its budget.  Now the Senate must do the same.  The key to breaking gridlock is the work involved in the reconciliation.  Without Mr. Reid’s budget there is nothing to reconcile so we have gridlock and the system fails.

President Obama complains all the time about a do nothing Congress.  The problem is he is the leader of the Democratic Party and could instruct Mr. Reid to pass a budget.  It would be hard work but it can and must be done.  After all, it is a basic requirement for his (their) jobs.  If they don’t want to do their jobs, there are plenty of others who would like to give it a try.

Published in the LaGrange Daily News (April 26, 2012)

We need a Renewal of Responsibility

Things are never as simple as they seem. One of the most disturbing trends in America is the shrinking middle class. There can be no doubt that the middle call has taken the brunt of the great recession. These trends are too disturbing to ignore.

• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• The top 10% of Americans now earn around 50% of our national income.
• Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.

This trend has not gone unnoticed by our politicians. From Occupy Wall Street to President Obama, this issue has been elevated in the national debate. They have identified the source of the problem as the evil one-percent. They have adopted the tried and true tactic of identifying a scapegoat to pin the masses’ problems on. There is no doubt that the top one percent have fared better during the great recession. When have the rich not done better than everyone else in bad times? To divide our nation into the good and the evil will weaken our country and will make it hard to recover from when the economy turns around. You don’t make the weak strong by making the strong weak.

The root cause of the demise of the middle class cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the evil one percent. The American middle class exploded during the 1950’s through the 1980’s. There has long been a saying “the first generation starts a business. The second generation runs it. And the third generation ruins it."

A recent editorial by Froma Harrop got me thinking. Are we now the third generation? My grandparents (the first generation) survived the great Depression, won World War Two and built the economic power of the United States. My parents (the second generation) took over and established the United States as the sole super power in the world. Now to the third generation, my generation – today’s middle class:

We grew up in relative luxury, never experiencing a depression. We were born into a country that dominated the world economically and culturally. We had it good and it showed. Like the analogous third generation of a family business we were spoiled. Prosperity was a birthright rather than something to be earned. Harrop made these observations of today’s middle class: Gone are the “mortgage burning parties” of the earlier generations, instead they continued to buy bigger homes. Gone are the downtown retailers and the family businesses on the square as the middle class left them for cheaper detergent at the big box retailers on the outskirts of town. Gone is the respect of teachers and authority that provided an education that could lead to better opportunities. I would add, gone is the sense of personal responsibility when 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings and a staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.

The President should be careful how he elevates a certain group as the source of all ills for the middle class. Once a group is demonized it is hard to rehabilitate them. While the policies that disproportionately benefited the one percent may be wrong-headed it is dangerous to call the people in this group evil.

Buried in the one percent are the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who created tremendous companies whose products benefited everyone including the poor, the middle class and the one-percenters. To demonize this group is lump the good in with the bad.

In 1916 by the Rev. William J. H. Boetcker, a Presbyterian clergyman penned 10 cannots that should serve as a guide to the President and today’s middle class.
 
1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

Many businesses have survived and thrived past the third generation. It is not easy and certainly not guaranteed. It takes a renewed sense of ownership. In other words, it will take a renewal of responsibility by all Americans working together to turn our fortunes around. Now that is a theme that would get my attention in this upcoming election.