Dear CCUSD Constituents,
I am disappointed to inform you that at 2:30 on April 5, the District was served a lawsuit from the Goldwater Institute to block what they call a "...misuse of school district bond money." Last year, our AZ Legislature approved a bill that allowed school districts within certain criteria to access unexpended bond monies. Our district fit the criteria and our Governing Board unanimously voted to use 13 million dollars of unexpended bonds to do work and repairs that have been postponed for years on our schools and other facilities. As you may know, a local publication had printed that the Goldwater Institute would be investigating our planned use of the 2000 bond monies. We are currently suspending work on the projects that these bond dollars were to be used for, pending the decision on this lawsuit. I know that our parents, students and staff were looking forward to having capital projects done starting in the upcoming week. In addition, we had hoped to use local contractors as much as possible to help our CCUSD greater community and economy. We have turned the suit over to our attorneys and look forward to a
positive outcome in the future.
Sincerely,
Debbi Burdick
Deb please start being accountable for what is happening under your watch. Stupid doesn't sound good on you.
ReplyDeleteI think this is very accountable and prudent.
ReplyDeleteLook folks - this is a process. A lot of laws are made at all levels of the government that when held up to scrutiny are questionable. Hence, we have a system of government that sets up a judicial branch that weighs these very question.
Debbi has informed her school population (some of whom might not of read of the suit) about the suit. She had two choices in how to go forward. 1) Proceed as normal and wait to see if the judicial stopped the work via a preliminary injunction.
2) Have the district make the choice to hold up the work pending the lawsuit.
Choice 2 was the responsible choice and she took it.
Hopefully the process will move forward without delay.
Do the capital improvement projects include the renovation of DAMS to be yet another rental property? I am sure Bella Vista and the little Montessori school on 56th street are looking forward to their newly renovated schools.
ReplyDeleteAs a tax payer and a member of this community who voted for this bond I am not the least bit amused by your bait and switch tactics. I did not approve this bond to provide a better environment for private schools.
The Sonoran news can only be blamed for so much... while it is not my favorite source for information I can usually read between the lines and find that somewhere in their editorial there is a fact worth investigating further.
Using the woe is us and the poor community is a pathetic excuse for a School District to find itself in. Own up to the error of your ways and start climbing out of the hole you have dug this district into!
The capital improvements that were slated to start this week involved much needed repairs and upgrades to BMES and CSHS.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, Ms. Burdick did not provide accurate information on her letter. The CC School District Board Members and she failed to act by the will of their constituents. If they would like to change the bond expenditures, they should have asked their constituents. Afterall, they are supposed to be the steward of our money and focused on education. There is a pattern of behaviors from school sups in this state. They would resort to any means to be in the business of empire building and never think that we would noticed. Live within your means like your constituents, who are losing jobs, homes and forced to cut back. Charter and private schools have less funding and are big successes. Ms. Burdick and CC Board members should examine these schools and emulate, not spending our money like it is not theirs.
ReplyDeleteso the money should just sit there and not be used to maintain, fix, replace certain things that cannot be maintained, fixed or replaced because the state has held back money to maintain, fix, replace for years? Property values should drop even further because schools are falling apart? That doesn't make sense. Why shouldn't the school district students benefit from renting out the building(s)? They just paid for a textbook adoption that my kid is going to benefit from with that rental money. Holding a grudge and being miserable for so long is not good for the soul. What ever happened to the saying it takes a village to raise a child - Unfortunately some people who live in the CCUSD area are missing the "village" part.
ReplyDeleteUmmm, and what part of the Goldwater Institute don't you all understand? The most frustrating thing about discussions here -- of any nature -- is that noone realizes that "the person behind the curtain" has everything to do with political partisanship and their own economic gain, and little, if anything, to do with bettering our public CCUSD schools.
ReplyDeleteThis is all about partisan politics. The Goldwater Institute is focused on privatization and it litigates, litigates, litigates to push forward their far right political agenda. You can visit their web site and it's all clearly laid out there. Goldwater Institute = Fox News, just like the Sonoran News and CCUSDWatch and at least two CCUSD GB members, all of whom would gladly see CCUSD schools closed so we can turn our schools over to Corporate America, further reduce taxes for people who live up on Desert Mountain, and then make sure that the poor kids with brown skin can't attend school anymore.
Welcome to Arizona, where $250 million in cuts to K-12 education are now on the table, even after our Governor said she would protect education funding if we voted to pass a one-cent sales tax last year. Like that little move isn't tranparent? To add insult to injury, or maybe I should say injury to insult, just yesterday our state legislators voted to allow hand guns on college campuses, and that includes community colleges, so the kids at PVCC next to the YMCA can all now be packing w/o concern. That is just flat-out insane.
Fact check: The plaintiff named on the Goldwater Institute lawsuit is Jayne Friedman, a Cave Creek resident and real estate agent who also had her own page on the web site of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party. You can Google it and see, but you'll also notice that her page was recently taken down, in advance of the lawsuit being filed I assume.
From the look of Jayne's profile photo on her FB page, she is likely too old to have school-aged or K-12 children. I could be wrong about that, but I am feeling more confident that she is commanding a handsome fee from the Goldwater Institute for her involvement in this, and her ability to reduce/eliminate property taxes altogether will surely boost her real estate career.
Why should Jayne care if there are safety hazards, like 25+ year old fire alarms in our schools, and A/C units that never work, forcing our kids to go to school in August/September and sit for hours in a room that measures in excess of 95 degrees. Jayne and the Goldwater Institute and the Sonoran News and the Watch and the others who sit so far right of sanity are too busy rejoicing over their political victory...make no mistake, this is what this lawsuit is all about...to worry about our students or schools. None of these individuals care at all about our students, so why does everyone pretend like they do? They want to take down the District so they can take down the public schools. District officials, by doing their jobs so poorly on so many occasions, just make it all too easy for the political operatives. The District is losing the game. The real losers in the end, our children.
As Jayne and her fellow Tea Party Patriots celebrate this preliminary victory, our students continue to attend broken-down schools. Way to go Patriot Jayne...you are one special lady. I sure do hope you can wrap yourself up all cozy and such in your American flag...cause in my mind you are one cold-hearted political zealot.
Go ahead now Watch, don't post what I wrote. Or,conversely, go ahead and bust lose on the fact that I stated the facts. In either case, I just don't care, but it sure did feel good to type truth to power.
Wow, right out of the liberal play book.
ReplyDelete1) Blame the right wing for everything
2) Call them racists
3) Descend to ad hominem attacks instead of arguing on the merits
4) Claim its 'for the children'
5) Mention Fox News
You probably would have brought up 'it takes a village' but @4:39 beat you to it. Not many facts there, but Saul Alinsky would be proud.
PS You forgot to blame George Bush and NCLB
I wonder if Debbi used some of that money to front her "CCUSD business trip" to China over Spring Break.
ReplyDeleteThe sad part is...the reason this all came about was a lack of trust that constituents would be able to understand that the initial use of the funds outlined in the bond no longer made fiscal or prudent sense.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't about whether or not people wanted or needed the changes to have been made. It's about whether or not the rules were followed in making those funds available. To say that it is all because the Goldwater Institute hates kids or education is just a cop-out. To get angry at those questioning the steps the district took and throw out that they "don't care about kids or want the much-needed renovation to happen" is really the weak argument (and completely false).
That's like the argument that Republicans want old people to starve when they suggest a reformation of Medicare and Social Security so it has a chance of being around for future retirees. It's a specious argument.
Anyone who has experienced the third-world quality of our schools (the ones up north, that is) would definitely understand the need for renovation. However, the question is about how the district approached the situation, not about whether or not the funds were needed.
Use of the bond money could have been put out for re-vote. That is how a district re-allocates use legally. There is a way to do it. Yes, in CCUSD that might be HARD...but wouldn't it show prudence in financial management if the district had done that? It should have been done at least four years ago.
Instead, they tried to pass a huge bond a few years ago to get enough funds to build the high school outlined in the initial language (because the initial bond really didn't include enough $$ to do everything outlined in it. When they created the initial bond, they had expected AZ School Facilities Board $$ to supplement). They included in it power-line moving (don't even get me started on that subject) and got parents from the north to support the idea with the promise that parents in the south with the newer schools who had not supported monies to renovate and upgrade before would now do so becasue of the power line funding. It Didn't happen...So now they once again had no renovation money AND too few funds left over on the bonds to do what they were written for.
Again, even though there was not anything evil in the intentions of the people behind the legislation, the longterm repercussions may be very hard to overcome. Also, how much $$ is this lawsuit going to cost? Where is that $$ coming from?
Not so easy to solve these problems. Tired of the mess.....There are other options folks...It's an Open Enrollment State...
The schools have been broken down for YEARS and the main reason is because CCUSD was so worried about bonds passing that when they wrote the initial bonds they never included monies to renovate and upgrade existing schools to the standards of the newer schools. They built four new elementary schools with NO monies in the bonds for upgrading their original schools.
ReplyDeleteThe huge need for renovation WAY back so again, CCUSD is reaping what it sowed. It is not just because of these bond monies. Parents in the newer schools saw no reason to support funding for renovation, etc. in the large bond put out for vote a few years ago...So CCUSD was left with no way to use the bond monies and no additional funding to support the other schools.
This lack of renovation and upgrade goes back to BEFORE these bonds were passed...So to now bring up how much these schools need work as if someone has finally recognized a need that no one seemed to care about very much for the past ten years seems a bit weak --especially since CCUSD constituents had the opportunity to vote in that funding just a few years ago and they DID NOT.
Those bonds included funds to renovate and upgrade both BMES and DAMS and might have helped avoid the DAMS closure.
What is with that comment about "brown-skinned students?" wow! Really??!!!
ReplyDeleteActually, it is the politically-correct funding process of the state, in part, that leaves CCUSD in such a lurch. Our higher income homes bring in a higher tax amount than other areas. However, that $$ does not go to CCUSD, it goes to subsidize poorer school districts.
In addition, a huge percentage of Federal funds and public and private grants go to support poor or low-income educational areas so those schools get three times as much support through state and Federal funds than CCUSd is able to qualify for due to our lack of students on Free or Reduced Lunch.
Then, in its wisdom, the legislature allows for districts to pass overrides so that wealthier areas may be able to support their schools with additional funds to make up for the state and Federal funds they cannot receive.
Unfortunately, some longstanding management issues with CCUSD (people up here have LONG memories and some of these go back more than 15 years) and the perceived (though some would argue very real) lack of quality management of the district make it very difficult to pass overrides up here (blaming the Sonoran News which I personally wish would die and go away--only goes so far). And the far-too-often predilection of parents to only vote for or support things that positively affect them personally --without any thought to the common good does not help either.
So...we live in one of the wealthiest places in the country and our school district is "broke". Go figure... In addition to the additional Federal, state and private funding they can receive, many poorer areas also have a much higher local school district tax rate than CCUSD which is one of the lowest in the state because CCUSD cannot convince their constituents that they are good stewards of that funding. This lawsuit is not going to help. It's too bad...
CCUSD does not adhere to the "village" part either. Too often they ask and ask and ask, business owners, parents, everyone and provide nothing in return.
ReplyDeleteParents trusted good stewardship and invested in their community and their community schools which the district closed (and other schools' parents celebrated).
Now...those same celebrating parents and schools are benefiting from rental income on the closed facility after renovation money which supposedly didn't exist (one of the reasons given for closing DAMS) now comes available...
That's very village like. It seems more like stomping on another's grave or kicking them when they are down.
Again...where was the village to support parents and students when their school was threatened wtih closure?
Why was the school being closed? Not for lack of enrollment....not because it was the academically lower middle school (after all, DAMS had higher test scores, more academic honors, etc. than the other school), not because there were no students feeding into it...
But becasue the "village" refused to close the lowest-enrolled school in the district which was, BTW, less than 2 miles from another similar school and would not have required academic restructuring of the 6th grade and taking away so many opportunities students in that grade had previously. It would not have affected EVERY school in the district. It would only have affected two.
Then, to add insult to injury, they chose to artifically increase enrollment at the lowest-enrolled school by reorganizing its grade structure and promoting it as a favored school. They cannibalized their other schools by making them seem less "worthy".
They were so sure the school they "saved" would draw so many Open Enrollment students it would save CCUSD. So basically those outside the village were more important than the village members.
Then...the village...cannibalized itself further as parents and teachers at other schools celebrated the school closure and derided parents who were unhappy to lose their community school and the center of the village.
Teachers from STMS applauded the closure vote at the School Board Meeting. Parents just saw that they might benefit by THEIR school remaining open and they were "sold" a bill of goods that the closure would save so much...Well, has anyone seen proof of that?
No...so sorry...the village argument doesn't hold much water. A true village is one of mutual support and I don't see that from the administration of CCUSD or the ccusd community.
Game, set, match. Watch just proved my point.
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with education, or the "curriculum, stupid." The Watch just tipped its partisan hand. I applaud them for doing so. Finally, someone opened a window and let some air and light in here.
PS -- You forgot to blame the "academic elite," the "lame stream media" and "Obamacare."
School district needs money for capital improvements. It asks voters to pass a bond. Voters pass a bond. District claims it will build schools with that bond money (that is a legal contract with the voters). In return, investors who invested in the bonds get tax free status (called munis). IRS issues rules for tax free status bonds. District does not comply with IRS rules nor does it use the remaining 13 million dollars to build schools (not enough). Rather, because of some special legislation passed in 2010 allowing CCUSD to spend on projects otherwise not promised to voters. We are on the hook for $50,000/month in interest payments for bonds issued in '06, with no distric compliance of IRS rules putting investors now in jeopardy of loosing their tax free status. That means the IRS could take away their tax savings since 2006. Plain and simple....CCUSD needs investors to invest so that they can build in the future. Why put in jeopordy the very people who can and do subsidize you? And someone wants to erroneously claim that the plaintiff, Jayne Friedman, has a monetary gain in all of this??? Goldwater Institute is doing pro bono work. It is a public interest lawsuit. We have laws. Read the Constitution (Arizona and U.S.)and you will undestand that "special laws and contract law" are foundation in both Constitutions. Not even CCUSD is above the law....Jayne Friedman
ReplyDeleteMs. Friedman,
ReplyDeleteGrowing quite tired of folks like you claiming CCUSD is breaking ANY law. They worked well-within the law and in the best interest of BOTH students and taxpayers in getting this money released to maintain our mutual investment in facilities. A Bond is a Bond is a Bond... the intent was to use this money to ensure a roof over our student's heads. You are splitting hairs.
Well, CCUSD had bond money in the bank and roofs practically caving in over our student's heads... (we did have a skylight fall at DAMS, so I guess you could say literally caving in).
The statement you make regarding interest paid is a farse... CCUSD probably earned just as much interest on that money they paid to the bond holders.
There is no jeapordy here, while CCUSD's bond status continues to rise for its fiscal responsibility, you go running to GI to help in your propaganda war against our local schools that happen to be some of the best in the state if not the country. No worries, your efforts will only make us stronger.
I hope that a judge sees through your smoke screen and that you lose this lawsuit. I also hope that you are held personally responsible for reimbursing the district for any legal expenses incurred in this antagonistic and misguided lawsuit, even though GI HAS most likely offered to cover all your expenses regardless of the outcome.
And NO, this is not a public interest lawsuit. This is an extremist-libertarian attack on public education. I just wonder where you got yours.
I do not think that people should personally attack Jayne Friedman. She did what she thinks is right, even though I personally disagree with the wisdom of her suit.
ReplyDeleteLet the courts work the process. While there may be some merit to her arguments on precedent from other states, I do not know enough about those cases to know whether they are really "apples to apples."
I think that one test that the court can apply to this suit is whether the bond monies are really being used in a way that in substance differs from their original intent.
For example, and without going point by point on anything, the district originally intended to build a new high school to solve overcrowding issues. The overcrowding issues are still unresolved, however the money is not sufficient - given current estimated costs - to build a new high school. However, they are enough to build an expansion to the existing high school campus. There is not a substantive difference in the use of funds.
As to the argument about tax consequences with the IRS, I believed it to be a moot point when Mr. Sorchych brought it up and I still do. I do not remember precisely what I learned when I looked into the Arizona Constitution on this matter, but I believe there were circumstances where the legislature held the cards on it. When the Barto law was passed (whether it holds up or not) it was kind of a carte blanche to get around any IRS difficulty.
Sorry - but I do not live in the district anymore and I have no intention of spending much time on this. If somebody wants to look into the IRS info, I've given enough info to make it possible.
@6:26 pm above Jayne Friedman, the plaintiff named on the Goldwater lawsuit, and a real estate agent in Cave Creek, says the "Goldwater Institute is doing pro bono work." Is she trying to suggest that they are a charity. Who does the Goldwater Institute provide charitable support to? Where do their charitable contributions go? Where does their money come from?
ReplyDeleteWell, even though Plaintiff Friedman sugggests that we all go "read the Constitution," you won't find the answers we really need there about GI or its 43 employees, including lots of attorneys, bean counters, and GI PR people, who, for some odd reason, GI refers to as investigative reporters and editors.
GI has a privacy policy that protects them from having to disclose who funds them or where their money comes from.
According to their most recent tax records, the Goldwater Institute does not give money to indiviudals or to charities. The money they receive appears to all go back into their own coffers to support overhead, their staff, their litigation efforts, and their ideologically driven publicity machine. In 2009, they paid a fund raising organization $120,881 for fund raising services, and GI had at least another $75,000 in expenses tied to a "gala fund raiser," all of which I assume keeps their propoganda and litigation machines well oiled.
GI's CEO, Darcy Olsen, used to work for the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank that, among other things, advocates for the privatization of public schools. Olsen received compensation from GI(not including benefits)of $227,268 in FY 2009, according to the form 990 GI filed with the IRS.
Clint Bolick is GI's Director of Litigation. Bolick, among other things, is a co-founder and former vice president of the libertarian public interest law firm Institute for Justice. He also was previously the president of the Alliane for School Choice, a group focused on the privatization of schools. Bolick was compensated by GI(not including benefits) $273,479 in FY 2009.
So, I guess Olsen and Bolick sleep well at night, if for no other reason than they can surely afford to send their children to private schools where the A/C works, the roofs are secure, and the fire alarm system doesn't look like something out of an old horror flick.
In total, in 2009 GI claimed about $2.5 million in revenue on their tax return. Koch Industries, or the billionaire Koch brothers, are identified or confirmed GI funders. The Koch brothers are staunch libertarians who have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes, including radical Tea Party interests and the Goldwater Institute, in recent years. They had given about $75,000 to the Goldwater Institute as of 2009.
Source: Tax records for the Goldwater Institute, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, available at guidestar.org for 2009.
As the old saying goes, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck:
Jayne Friedman says @6:26 above: "Plain and simple....CCUSD needs investors to invest so that they can build in the future. Why put in jeopordy the very people who can and do subsidize you? And someone wants to erroneously claim that the plaintiff, Jayne Friedman, has a monetary gain in all of this???"
Quack, quack, quack.
@2:10 PM if you are going to go with the ad hominem attacks, get your facts correct. The Bolick family sends their school age children to a public school.
ReplyDeleteI know because I met them at a car wash fundraiser where we all were washing cars to help help raise money for the funeral expenses of a classmate who had drowned.
Let's cut the crud with the politics, the Obama criticisms, the Tea Party vs Liberals rhetoric, and let's get down to the bottom line facts.
ReplyDeleteCCUSD is suffering from its leadership - or lack thereof. Since she has been in this district, Debbi Burdick has done NOTHING to improve or grow CCUSD to the level it wants to and should be. She weaseled her way into the superintendency by counseling her "friend" to resign under a cloud of mystery. She has embraced and rewarded ineffective administration (e. g. Dolezal, Hill, Gaines, Honigman) and chased out some good people both at the administrative and teaching levels. She masks her willingness to meet and speak with people with her narrow vision of what the district and schools should be. God help you if you disagree with her.
If CCUSD is going to improve, it needs to get rid of Burdick.
and how do we do that 5:08 am with a board that has blinders on. We need to see Burdick go as well as the three bobble heads up for re-election in 2012.
ReplyDelete12:42 PM
ReplyDeleteThe name calling is almost like watching a Soros funded Media Matters commercial. What does the Tea Party have to do with this? And what's with the demonizing and name calling? Many of your fellow citizens consider themselves affiliated with the growing number of citizens no longer silent who refer to "tea party" in the best sense of our country's founding history. Remember "Tea Partiers" was a derogatory term coined by the far left. The average citizen: radical?...no, parents?...yes, grandparents?...yes, moms?...yes, students?...yes, dads?...yes....concerned citizens?...yes, and teachers?....yes! Again, what's with all the name calling? What does it have to do with this law suit or finding solutions? Is name calling really all you have to offer "the children?"
Well Anonymous 4/11 @ 12:42, you make a good point certainly. Facts will speak for themselves. No legislator, Barto or otherwise, can over rule the IRS. "When the Barto law was passed (whether it holds up or not) it was kind of a carte blanche to get around any IRS difficulty." That was actually part of a post up above. Now this is liberal thinking at its best! Whatever law we don't like, we'll just get some legislator to erase the Constitution! See how easy that is? That silly outdated piece of paper. Well re-read the special law clause and the contract clause. It's in both State and Federal Constitution. And if you don't like and/or understand what you've read.....say to yourself, "this is the architecture of my beloved country. Without it we are just a house of cards." We may not like the application of the document all the time but it needs to be sacrosanct. You cannot re-birth this shining city on the hill!
ReplyDeleteI just saw an excellent presentation by John Halligan. His son Ryan committed suicide in 2003 after a combo of bullying, cyberbullying and depression.
ReplyDeleteI think the part about cyberbullying was especially pertinent to the behaviors on this board. The empowerment through anonymity enables the cyberbullies.
BTW I penned 12:42. I simply was giving some background, not facts as I don't intend to get pulled into this. Someone else is welcome to follow up or not, but it was not a liberal or anti-constitutional rant. The constitution afforded the process of the judicial branch and it may decide for or against Ms. Friedman. So be it.
There are several facts missing from this issue:
ReplyDelete"Cave Creek voters passed a $41.6 million bond in November 2000 to fund construction of two elementary schools, a middle school and a high school and to buy buses." according to Az Republic. CCUSD School Board Members underestimated the costs of these school projects to convince the voters to approve the bond. $41.6 million is not enough to fund all 4 schools. So they were the ones who started this quagmire.
"What we made sure to do in the omnibus bill was to fix that and open it up so it would apply to other school districts," Barto said in another AZ Republic article. Rep. Barto is not just trying to help CCUSD. She is setting up precedent for other school districts to use left over bond money for anything they want without any regards to the will of the voters.
Don't believe me. It is all in this link: http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2010/08/06/20100806cave-creek-school-bond-money.html#ixzz1JQAbceOW
According to another AZ Republic Article, none of the bond money will go to improve classrooms. Most of the money will be used toward misc. cosmetic projects that do not impact the quality education of students, (with may be the exception of replacing air conditioning units in some of these non-classroom areas). What does renovating the warehouse have to do with students?
Please see article in link below:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/08/31/20100831cave-creek-bond-money-projects.html
Also, these projects are so minor that they could not possibly add up to $13 million. Can someone please look into the bidding practices of these projects and who are they benefiting? Were they bid on price or cronyism?
Whenever board members and sups spend, it is usually based on cronyism, especially when they risk the ire of their constituents to do so. Just follow the money and you will find why they risked everything for these projects. Remember only 5 people, the board members, get to decide how this bond money is being spent. I challenged some of the commenters on this blog to stop the rhetorics and start investigating these projects.
Ms. Friedman is the messenger. Please do not blame her for the mistakes of the previous CCUSD Board for underestimating the bond. Blame Ms. Burdick for spinning this and not admitting it was CCUSD Board that got her into this quagmire.
Blame Ms. Barto for trying to set precedent for other school districts on the back of CCUSD students.
Ms. Barto and Ms. Burdick are really the two people who are wasting taxpayers' money.
FYI Debbi Burdick and Kent Frison, the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent, are registered lobbyists as well as Board Member, Casey Perkins. They are not lobbyists for the pork industry either. They are lobbyists for CCUSD. Isn't this a conflict of interest? Ms. Burdick, Ms. Perkins and Mr. Frison must be uber efficient to perform 2 positions well in a 40 hour week.
ReplyDeleteApril 9, 8:53pm, appears to be mistaken!
ReplyDeleteIn the 2009-10 school year, actual CCUSD debt service (Fund 700) investment income was about $200,000, while the actual interest expenditures were about $1.33 million. The net $1.1 million (about 85% of the total) were mainly funded by district property taxes.
Significant improvements in district investment income, if possible, may be subject to extensive review, and possible payments to the Federal government, by IRS regulators in accordance with arbitrage rebate laws.
April 9, 8:53pm didn't "appear to be mistaken." They intentionally distorted the truth. In another word, they lied when they said "the statement you make regarding interest paid is a farse... CCUSD probably earned just as much interest on that money they paid to the bond holders". As with all liberals, truth is just a piece of dust to be flicked off so the naive and the trusting suspend their common sense and say things like.....they are "for the children" and those of us who believe in following the law are somehow against the children. There is no convincing the sheeple with facts. Not even interested in the exercise. We're just going to keep them under a microscope and force them to be compliant with laws other than Barto's special law designed just for CCUSD. The gig is up!
ReplyDeleteIt's not that we're flicking dust, it's that we don't believe the minutia is worth fighting over, especially when yesterday is gone and tomorrow is what we need to plan for. This is what we ask of our leaders, and this is what they have done.
ReplyDeleteIf you choose to fight your battles with a rear-view microscope, then so be it, it is your right. Sadly, you are missing the big picture in doing so, IMHO.
To quote 8:46p "As with all liberals, truth is just a piece of dust to be flicked off so the naive and the trusting suspend their common sense and say things like.....they are "for the children" and those of us who believe in following the law are somehow against the children."
ReplyDeleteI believe this would fall under the definition of cyberbullying since it resorts to labeling and smearing.
Just wondering where this is all leading? Recall Warren and Schaefer? Ask for Burdicks's resignation? Is that payback enough for the DAMS closure, the idiotic financial secrecy and the personal attack on one of the board members by the other board members? Hmm maybe. Why not call a truce, don't use the bond money stop the lawsuit. Save the legal fees and use that money to pay for something to do with the kids. At the most recent board meeting the Asst. Super. was quoted as saying the district "was financially in good shape for the next two years" which precluded the announcement of additional spending on various items. Anybody wondering how we can afford to add programs, paint closed schools etc.. (please don't answer this I've heard all of the distict mumbo jumbo I can take, we must keep up with the rest of the world I know)I for one would like a librarian back at my elementary school if you're spending money off of the district money tree, I'm just saying. District supporters from AZlearns are out there trying to raise money and awareness for a bond election this fall. I don't see any way on our current path that it has a prayer as long as Board Members continue on their propoganda missions at our schools. Please don't answer questions about GWI vs CCUSD because we have alternatives ways to get our news.
ReplyDelete