|
"Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those of us who are doing it"© - S. Hickman
| Home Against the Grain Livid Leigh Boilin' Ed D. Tom The Informer Knowledge is Freedom Privacy Links Court Case Contact Us |
© 1994 - 2007
|
Against the Grain
|
Richland One Performance White Paper Conduct of the affairs of Richland School District One is a matter for public concern even for those living beyond the school district's boundaries because: * It is the state's third largest school district The district's school board is fiscally irresponsible. Cost per student Data from a South Carolina School Boards Association publication compares
the state's school districts showing each district's general fund budget
and enrollment, giving an approximate "cost per student". Comparing
the seven districts in Lexington and Richland Counties reveals the following
costs per student. Lex 4 $4912 This shows Richland One is 10% higher than the next highest (Lexington One). If Richland One could educate its students for the same cost as neighboring Richland Two, that would save about $1100 per student ($6601- $5503), times Richland One's 26,000 students, saving $28,600,000 annually! Richland Two is generally considered as producing better results. The latest State Department of Education (DOE) 'Report cards' show Richland One with NINE elementary, FOUR middle, and ONE high school 'below average', and THREE middle and TWO high schools as 'unsatisfactory'. That statistic (school performance) is bad enough. Usually people tolerate substandard performance IF the District is working to improve. Such is not the case. The same DOE report shows that Richland One had 13 elementary, TWO middle and TWO high schools with unsatisfactory ratings for efforts to improve! Bottom line: Paying more, getting less. (Note: Richland One SHOULD be more efficient based purely on the theory of economies of scale.) $381 million bond referendum Richland One promoted passage of a ballot referendum in November 2002 for permission to borrow $381,000,000 for building/renovating schools. This is the largest bond referendum in state history, eclipsing the previous state record (also held by Richland One) of $184,000,000 passed just 5 years earlier. Adding these two comes to $565,000,000 in debt placed on 2/3 of one county's taxpayers in 5 years! *This is ½ Billion dollars. Repayment of this debt will require substantial property tax increases for a number of years. The amount will not be known until tax bills are prepared, but estimates are the increase will be about $100 for every $100,000 of property value. Based on the plans, this allocates $40 million for each of two new high schools and more than $20 million each to "renovate" twelve other schools. The District asked for this $381 million despite having available $56 million that is unspent! This $56 million is composed of $20 million received from the state for building purposes, and $36 million in unused "8%" money. "8% money" is the authority school districts have to sell bonds totaling 8% of a district's assessed value simply by vote of the school board. Outright deception In presentations to the public prior to the November '02 bond referendum, District One officials stated that Dreher High would be rebuilt on its 'existing campus'. After winning the election, District officials began secret acquisitions of prime residential property adjacent to the campus for parking lots in violation of state law requiring DOE approval before buying real estate for schools. Estimates place the expenses to taxpayers at $20,000 per parking space! In buying these homes at inflated prices, the District paid more than double typical real estate commissions and hired a member of city council as closing attorney at FOUR TIMES the typical rate. Closing statements prepared for the closings attempted to hide certain fees in violation of federal law. Superintendent's salary The District Superintendent's salary ($158,200) is outrageous! Richland One is paying about $6 per student while Greenville and Charleston pay their superintendents about $2.50 per student. That is more than twice "the going rate" in the superintendent market place. One would think the scope of the job would be a major factor in determining this expense. Taxes escalate School taxes in Richland One have gone up 46% in 10 years despite a drop in enrollment of more than 1000 students! Poor judgment In December 2002, a snowfall resulted in six area school districts closing schools. Richland One was the only area district opening. Dangerous road conditions resulted in endangering thousands of students and wrecking two busses. Schools were CLOSED 30 minutes after opening! What was the cost of opening 50 schools for ½ hour? Frivolous lawsuits In the fall of 2003, the District went to the State Supreme Court to argue about a team playing in the statewide basketball championships. For a District so strapped for funds that it must sell out its schools (below), this is a questionable use of public funds. Selling out the schools The Administration has signed a contract with a marketing firm to "sell our schools" to corporations who want to advertise their goods/services on signs and ads throughout the buildings, athletic fields and media of the District. If this were a good idea, the District could do this without the high fees and commissions paid to the marketing firm. Summary This is a broad-based analysis proving that the current board has no regard for the efficient expenditure of public funds. They never saw a dollar they couldn't spend. They have failed in their responsibility to provide quality education at a reasonable price. Definition of corruption: being guilty of dishonest actions William Cauthen
|
\