Kim's read of the '06-'07 budget proposal
Kim wrote a post about tonight's first reading of the budget over on LeftInSF. This post reviews the budget document that we linked to here last week. The BOE will meet tonight to discuss it. One of her comments concerns "central office" spending:
So let's (speculatively) run these down:
Policy and Planning—+$38K—sounds like Myong Leigh's domain. Pretty small potatoes. If this gives us a stronger lobbying presence and has anything to do with retaining Vernon Billy, then I say it's a great idea. As was noted here after the community budget workshop, the state reps from the Bay Area are pretty weak on ed policy. There has been a sea change / power shift in the ed policy world towards the southland. We need more horsepower in Sacramento.
If $55K amounts to an %18 increase for the BOE, that means they spent $310K last year on the BOE. Sounds cheap to me. They don't pay the board, so they may as well support them adequately. They have some important business to attend to this year, no?
Labor relations +$20K, Student attendance +$14K ... ah, ah, ah CHOOO! next...
Research and Planning +$102K, Real Estate Permits +289K... now we're talking real money. Keep in mind that the district has been criticized for the job it did putting the school closure plan together last year. And they have some vacant properties from last year and more slated to be closed this year. Stands to reason that planning and real estate spending will have to increase. Hopefully this increase is a one-time or short-term increase related to closures and consolidations.
I commend Kim for taking the time to pour over the document. Transparency is worthless without someone to actually take the time to look over the books. If the items she's flagged are the most suspect, then it looks pretty good.
But why is the WSF allocation going down by %1 if the unrestricted funds are increasing by %7?
"District staff is asking increases in the unrestricted fund budgets of the following central offices: Policy and Planning by 9% ($38,670); Board of Education by 18% ($55,886); Research and Planning by 16% ($102,970); Student Attendance Office by 8% ($14,181), Labor Relations by 6% ($20,175) and Real Estate Permits (again, this is expenditures-not revenue) by 284% ($289,271)."Kim does not directly object to these increases, but she infers that this is undesirable. And with a 7% increase in unrestricted funds it does seem wrong that WSF funding allocations will be cut.
So let's (speculatively) run these down:
Policy and Planning—+$38K—sounds like Myong Leigh's domain. Pretty small potatoes. If this gives us a stronger lobbying presence and has anything to do with retaining Vernon Billy, then I say it's a great idea. As was noted here after the community budget workshop, the state reps from the Bay Area are pretty weak on ed policy. There has been a sea change / power shift in the ed policy world towards the southland. We need more horsepower in Sacramento.
If $55K amounts to an %18 increase for the BOE, that means they spent $310K last year on the BOE. Sounds cheap to me. They don't pay the board, so they may as well support them adequately. They have some important business to attend to this year, no?
Labor relations +$20K, Student attendance +$14K ... ah, ah, ah CHOOO! next...
Research and Planning +$102K, Real Estate Permits +289K... now we're talking real money. Keep in mind that the district has been criticized for the job it did putting the school closure plan together last year. And they have some vacant properties from last year and more slated to be closed this year. Stands to reason that planning and real estate spending will have to increase. Hopefully this increase is a one-time or short-term increase related to closures and consolidations.
I commend Kim for taking the time to pour over the document. Transparency is worthless without someone to actually take the time to look over the books. If the items she's flagged are the most suspect, then it looks pretty good.
But why is the WSF allocation going down by %1 if the unrestricted funds are increasing by %7?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home