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.

MATC students along with all technical college and two-year college students in Wisconsin have a more difficult time gaining their education as the result of lenders leaving this marketplace.

MATC has nearly 5,300 students now at risk due to the fact that several lenders have decided to pull out of this market stating that it is unprofitable.  That supposedly is caused by too little money being borrowed for too short a time.

The total of loans that are affected by these pull-outs is more than $18 million, and involves five lenders for MATC students.

Several thoughts occur:

What other programs are available to these 5,300 students?  Supposedly there are from six to twenty other lenders available to the students if we are to believe the technical college system president, Daniel Clancy.  If that is the case, why would some big names pull out?  Those names included Chase, Citibank and TCF.  If there is money to be made, wouldn't they still want some of it?  Or is this indicative of some other more pervasive problem?

Will they qualify for replacement loans or is that really part of the problem that causes the lenders to want out?  Many of the students relying on these loans are low income people as you would presume could be the case.  It may not be possible for them to apply to other lenders and expect to be granted access to credit.  The federal government passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 and, contrary to what the name might suggest, this limited federal subsidies to those who lend money to students, and more than fifty such lenders left the market.  This suggests that we're talking about marginally-viable loans and that, without government guarantees, there will be fewer dollars available and those will go to better credit risks.

If there is a loss of significant numbers of MATC students, will MATC face up to the need to reduce budget?  There are nearly 5,300 students affected by this situation.  If half of those are unable to obtain different loans, there will likely be a similar number dropping out of MATC.  I don't know what the 'full time equivalent' student number is, but let's assume that these students are half-time.  So we would have a loss of half of the 5,300, or 2,650 and those would equate to 1,325 full time equivalent students.  That is about ten percent of the current total FTE students now attending MATC.  Will we see a ten percent reduction in the MATC budget?

Or, will MATC see this as forcing it to actually increase its tax take in order to offset the loss of student tuition?  Your guess is as good as mine, but I'll be amazed if we see a budget reduction as the result of this situation.  One cannot simply reduce staff because the student load has dropped, can one?  How does one manage to down-size when there are so many fixed costs, so many people relying on MATC for their livelihoods, so much left to do in the building of the empire?

What seems more likely is that this will be dragged out as alternatives are sought, and it will be talked about for awhile until we lose track of the issue.  Maybe state legislators will step up up and recommend new state guarantees.  After all, military veterans are given 100% tuition credits so it is only fair to begin providing everyone with 100% tuition to attend MATC.  It is only fair that MATC have this kind of support since the Milwaukee Public Schools are generating so few qualified graduates any longer.

The last paragraph was intended as 'tongue in cheek' in nature but I fear that it might be closer to reality than not. 

The president of the MATC teachers union, Michael Rosen, says he'll be in contact with Representative Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) to seek her help in assuring that students still have access to federal loans.  The dominoes have begun to fall and they threaten to crush us taxpayers yet again.  Why do they never topple in the other direction?

The third edition will begin with Rep. Wasserman's response since Senator Darling batted lead-off last edition:

Do you support the right of properly-trained and screened citizens to carry a concealed weapon?  If so, why and if not, why not?

Rep. Wasserman: 

The devil is in the details on this one.  Our Constitution protects the right to bear arms.  We also have a State Supreme Court ruling upholding the right to protect ourselves in our homes and our businesses.

Logically there must be some way of transporting guns in between these two places.  I feel very strongly that we could have passed a bill, but the last couple of times we voted on concealed carry, extremists on both sides of the issue refused to compromise.

Sen. Darling:

Yes.  The concealed carry bill debated in the legislature last session would have permitted individuals to carry a concealed weapon only after passing a criminal background check and completing a training and safety course.

One under-appreciated aspect of this debate is the 2003 ruling of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Hamdan.  In that decision, the court ruled that a business owner had a constitutional right to have a concealed weapon at his business for his protection and defense.

Understanding that there are likely to be additional challenges to the current law banning concealed weapons, the Court asked the legislature "to consider the possibility of a licensing or permit system for persons who have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon."

Without that system, additional court decisions striking down the ban on concealed carry may ironically lead to what opponents of the bill fear most - the ability for anyone to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in Wisconsin, with no limits on eligibility, no requirements for safety or training and no registration.

Still, I would not support this bill if the result would be an increase in public incidents of violence.  Fortunately, we can look to the experiences of 48 other states that already have concealed carry laws (with millions of permit holders over many decades) that have not seen licensees contribute to increased levels of gun violence.  Rather, as a group, permit holders have proven to be remarkably law-abiding.  I find it particularly telling that no state has ever repealed its concealed carry law, which speaks to the fact that the safeguards inherent in these permitting systems work as intended.  I do not expect that Wisconsin permit holders would be any less responsible or trustworthy.

* * * * * * * * * *

A. What would you do to cause technical colleges to be more responsive to the taxpayer?   B. And, do you support Germantown's expected petition to move from the MATC tax district to either the MPTC or WCTC districts?

Rep. Wasserman:

A. I support legislation to make technical college board members elected, not appointed.  Local elected representation is critical.  Any board that gets to levy a tax should be accountable to the taxpayers.

B. I've long been a supporter of local control.  Madison doesn't always know best, and if I wanted to be a local official making local decisions, I would run for local office.  And as with membership of technical college boards, this should be a local decision.

Sen. Darling:

A. I would make technical college board members elected officials.  Unelected technical college boards are one of the last few entities with the authority to tax without any direct accountability to taxpayers.  Members of technical college boards are named through a convoluted appointment process that sets aside seats based on race, gender and employer.  These unelected technical college boards have lately been approving property tax hikes that vastly outpace the tax growth of other local governments who, not coincidentally, are run by elected officials.

That is why I introduced a bipartisan bill that would end the insulating appointment process for technical college board membership and replace it with an election process similar to most other local government positions.  The rationale is simple.  I believe technical college board members would feel more pressure to lower their taxing and spending if they had to answer directly to the voters who foot the bill.

B. Yes.

* * * * * * * * * *

Once again, I want to thank both Rep. Wasserman and Sen. Darling for their participation.  We are looking for other reader questions, so please don't be bashful.

* * * * * * * * * *

One last item for today:  we have received Assembly Candidate Randy Melchert's commitment to participate in a similar 'debate' that may be a bit lopsided unless he has an opponent.  So far, there is no indication of any other activity on either the Republican or Democrat sides of the aisle.  The seat in the 24th District has long been thought to be a solid Republican seat, but one would think this might be the time that gets tested.

Since we don't know how Randy Melchert sees all the issues, it seems appropriate to have  this discussion even if he remains unopposed.

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.

"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 Milwaukee Public School Board's Finance Committee took a vote last evening concerning whether or not to support "equal provision of employee benefits regardless of an employee's sexual orientation or family status".  The committee voted 4 to 1 in favor of that change in the MPS system.

Up to now, there are four school districts that provide similar benefit coverage.  Those schools are in Madison, Middleton, Sun Prairie and La Crosse.  Additionally, the City of Milwaukee and MATC provide domestic partner benefits.  These kinds of changes have been made elsewhere around the country so this is not new although it is still unusual.

It is not possible to fully step away from the 'third rail' of whether or not same sex partners should or should not receive benefits from the employer of one of the partners.  This subject evokes very strong feelings both pro and con.  This is one of those classic 'slippery slope' issue sets where those desiring such benefits nibble away at the elephant a bite at a time, and someday we awaken to find the entire elephant has been eaten.

The language portrayed in the committee's proposition also suggests that this is not simply a subject about same sex couples.  What is to prevent one MPS employee from cohabiting with a boyfriend or girlfriend whether or not there is an 'understanding' other than simple cohabitation for the time being?  Will a 'marriage certificate' be required in order to qualify?

How can a marriage certificate be presented unless it was obtained in one of the brief windows that have periodically opened for a day or two around the country?

If not a marriage certificate, then just what documentation will be required?  What would stop a person who has just been diagnosed with a very serious disease from applying for coverage through a friend employed by MPS or the City or MATC?

My recollection is that Jennifer Morales (the MPS board member who introduced this motion during a recent board meeting) and her partner traveled to Victoria, BC to be married.  Will that certificate be acceptable in Milwaukee, or will the MPS benefits people simply need to take the employee's word for the establishment of a domestic partner?

The Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association immediately jumped on this and will expect this to be made available to bargaining unit employees prior to the expiration of the current contract.  The slippery slope increases in angle rather quickly on occasion.

Is this a case of cart and horse in reverse?  Should this issue have been resolved in courts of law prior to these small incursions in one location and then another?  Or, is it the mood of the country that this is what should be available pure and simple?

The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.  Oscar Wilde

A Germantown citizen, John M., provided me a copy of the e-mail letter he sent to Rep. Wasserman on October 20th.  It seems that Rep. Wasserman knocked on the John M. residence door and spoke with Mrs. M.  John M. then sent his letter seeking clarification on various matters so as to be able to make an informed decision about voting for either Rep. Wasserman or for incumbent Sen. Darling when that time comes.

I received a follow-up e-mail from John M. yesterday advising me that he had received no response to his original letter.  He also mentioned that he had telephoned Rep. Wasserman's office on October 29th and left a message asking if the assemblyman would respond to his letter.  He has since had no response to either his letter or the phone call.

There are some very tight rules regarding campaigning and it is possible that Rep. Wasserman is not allowed to respond to campaign-related issues from his Madison office on state time.

It is possible, however, for the private Sheldon Wasserman who is running for the Senate trying to unseat Sen. Darling to respond to the issues in other forums.  I have previously asked for his participation in a series of Q&As that would be published on Curmudgeon's Corner, all to no avail.

So once again, let's try to get some answers to common questions anyone might ask.

Candidate Wasserman, you refer to yourself as a "fiscal conservative".  How do you define that term and how does it apply to your record?

Candidate Wasserman, as you know, Germantown is moving toward filing petitions seeking to be allowed to leave the MATC district and to move to either the WCTC or to the MPTC district.  Do you support this effort?  If yes, why?  If no, why?

Candidate Wasserman, what is your position on the entire issue of appointed boards with taxing authority that are not directly responsible to the taxpayers?  Would you support legislation that would make such boards elected rather than appointed?  If yes, why?  If no, why?

We invite answers from Sen. Alberta Darling (who has already committed to responding) as well, and we'll publish those when and as received.

The people who run our state have little or no concern for those of us who pay to have them running the state.  That is so apparent as to be a truism.

The tech colleges had already been given the ability to increase their take by 4%.  That is considerably greater than the inflation that had occurred, but it still wasn't enough!  The governor just had to take the cap away.  He said, "If technical colleges do not have the ability to respond to the rapidly changing needs of businesses in Wisconsin, economic growth will suffer".

Does anyone believe that excessive taxation spurs economic growth?

Michael Rosen, head of the MATC teachers union and a member of the state technical college board had this to say: "Governor Doyle again demonstrated his commitment to growing Wisconsin's economy through training and investing in the labor force today.  The veto he took today continues his commitment to that vision."

I suspect that Rosen is sincere with his statements.  The lockstep between the state technical college board and the Governor is very, very apparent.  Appointed boards tend to be that way, don't they?

By the way, the 4% cap would've pared an estimated $7.9 Million from the budgets already passed by the sixteen tech colleges.  Of that amount, MATC would've "lost" $3.9 Million.  Interesting that MATC is one of sixteen colleges (6.25%), while its share of the 'lost" tax money would've amounted to over 49% of the total.  Only two of the sixteen colleges had already come in under the 4% property tax cap.  That means that 13 colleges split the remaining 50%

Does this sound like a well-run and properly guided system to you?  It doesn't to me.

Does this send a solid and positive signal to employers?  I don't think so, no matter how much the governor and his team preach the same sermon.  We are an over-taxed state and we will stay that way.  We continue to elect those who can only think 'spending increase' and who do not have the phrase 'expense reduction' in their vocabularies.  Then, we step back and wonder why we get the same thing over and over again.

The author of the Lil' Abner comic strip may have had it right when he said (paraphrased), "We have met the enemy, and he is us".

Can you even begin to believe this? 

Governor Doyle has indicated that he is vetoing the technical college tax increase limiting them to a mere 4%.  He has reneged on his promise of no tax increases in so many ways as to be almost comical...but this is not funny.  It is a sad day for Wisconsin.  We will continue to lose population since jobs are leaving our state; we'll ultimately be down another seat in the House with the next reapportionment

It is imperative that we get an Assembly bill moving immediately to make the technical college system accountable to the taxpayers.  We need to get a companion Senate bill moving immediately, as well.  Call your elected representatives today and express your disgust, and get their commitment to move this forward!

The Republicans should be able to get this passed in the Assembly.  The Senate is a different arena given that it is controlled by the Democrats.  With Sen. Russ Decker now installed as the Senate Majority Leader, the likelihood that this will even get out of committee in the Senate is remote.  If we thought the former Senate Majority Leader was difficult with whom to work...'we ain't seen nothing yet'.

However, we need to establish, once and for all, that the technical college system is broken.  That can begin to be accomplished with a debate.

If anyone has had the idea that Democrats can be relied upon to control government spending in Wisconsin, they ought to be disabused of that notion by now.  The only ultimate solution is for the taxpayers, who are also the electorate, to dump the Democratic majority in the Senate while increasing the Republican majority in the Assembly.  Ultimately, we need to get a fiscal conservative into the Governor's office but that won't happen until at least the next election.  And, our track record is rotten on that score.

Once again, everyone who voted for Governor Doyle either loves more and more taxation, or they were hoodwinked.

Given this move by the Governor, what do you think our chances of leaving the MATC district look like today?

This travesty simply has to end!  And the voters...us...are the only people who can make that happen!

MATC will, if the newly agreed compromise budget is passed today, be limited to a 4% increase in its property tax levy over the next two years.

It had already passed a 5% increase hoping that would be permissible when the state budget was finalized.

MATC teachers' union president, and state technical college board member, Michael Rosen was quoted in the morning Journal Sentinel saying this is bad news for students and for economic development.  "It's going to cause the colleges to increase tuition and price out the workers who will be fuel for business expansion".

What do you do when your income doesn't support your expenses?  You and I reduce our expenses.  What has MATC done over its history when its revenue didn't meet its expense needs?  It raised its revenue by increasing taxes and/or tuition.

This statement is indicative of one of the major problems at MATC, and possibly with other tech colleges.  They simply do not consider balancing a budget by reducing expense.  Here are a couple of ideas for their consideration.  Either eliminate positions since that consumes something close to 90% of their total budget, or sell some land and buildings and lease those back from the new owners.  If their agreements do not permit 'permanent layoff' then offer a buy-out that can be spread over future years.

Businesses use these tools all the time.  Incidentally, WCTC just took its increase and had no problem living within its means.  It also just completed negotiations with its labor organizations and held increases to a very manageable level.

Why not MATC?

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 School District.

Incidentally, the school board has apparently learned that any petitions not filed by October 1st will, even if approved, not take effect until July 1, 2009.  This is a standing policy of the state technical college board.  What other obstacles will suddenly materialize as we push forward?  This will be a long and strenuous battle for what is right.  After all, the last time the state technical college board approved a change was in 1971 when it agreed to move Germantown into the MATC district.  Lightning can certainly strike twice!

The CRG study on which these MATC Blogs have been based, drew multiple conclusions:

• MATC has not engaged in improvement processes such as those employed in the private sector.
• MATC has no competitive or adversarial forces that would drive it toward improvement.
• MATC's board has favored special interests and the current tax rates stand in testimony to that.
• IF MATC were to continue on its present path, taxes would double in ten years or less, outstripping the public's ability to pay.

CRG's recommendations were as follow:

Recommendation 1:  Replace the entire MATC Board, possibly with an elected board, but certainly with new constituencies to 'clean house'.

Recommendation 2:  Establish mandated state revenue caps on MATC to force it to work on improvements rather than to simply charge people more for the same product.

Recommendation 3A:  Bring MATC's tuition in line with that in the UW system and eliminate duplicated programs.

Or, Recommendation 3B:  Allow the UW system to take over the operation of MATC programs and facilities.

It seems a simple conclusion, to me, that change is required.  Such change needs be all-encompassing.  We need an elected board as Sen. Alberta Darling has proposed.  We need changes in the hierarchy of leadership.  Mr. Cole has simply not done the job on behalf of either students or taxpayers.  I'm not sure about rewarding the UW system with the right to operate MATC, for that system is rife with the waste of taxpayer dollars, as well.  The UW system is permissive and supportive of the same special interests that dominate MATC.

MATC needs be brought to understand that it will no longer be permitted to operate with impunity, as it has over these many years.  One way to demonstrate that loudly and clearly is for the state technical college board to begin an internal audit of this institution, and to conduct that audit in the full light of day.  We've looked at the results of the well-conducted and well-documented CRG study, but that was done without the full cooperation of the institution being studied.  It would not be unreasonable for the state board to severely reprimand Mr. Cole; or ideally to cause him to desire to resign (since tenure would require an extended investigation in and of itself) even if it meant the payment of additional funds.  An additional hundred thousand dollars or so is 'chump change' compared with the travesty visited on us taxpayers over and over again!  While many will argue that it isn't right to reward someone with this history, it is equally apparent that not to do so would cause the perpetuation of these acts at a significantly higher cost.

The legislature must act quickly, in this term, to alter the entire technical college system.  This may be the only district where such egregious conduct has occurred, or it may not be the only one.  We don't know.  We do now understand, however, that anything is possible in the current environment.  The foxes have long ago taken over the hen house.  That alone should propel the legislature to effect change immediately, and to do so with a 'veto proof' majority on both sides of the aisle since we can expect the governor to veto any such action.  Except for one hold-over appointed member, this board is the governor's creation, after all.

The CRG study published last year raised some additional points that suggest serious issues.

The composition of the board lends itself to decisions that do not reflect the circumstances of the general populace.  Two members are elected officials, three members are in the public sector heavily represented by unions, another is a business manager for a union local, one is a lawyer and and another is a consultant for a firm representing special interests.  The vast majority of the board at that time, seven members, came from the public sector and/or an environment tied to organized labor.  Many have personal wage and benefit packages that are similar to those found at MATC.  Given their perspective, it seems clear why special interests are better represented than is the average taxpayer.

Board member e-mails were obtained through open records requests.  Following are highlights:

In discussing financial decision-making, then board member Dr. William Hughes (Superintendent of the Greendale School District) writes to fellow board member Mark Maierle (Business Manager of Operating Engineers Local 317) on March 30, 2005 at 7:54AM: "In the end, a budget with over 90% perhaps as high as 94% of funds going to payroll, benefits and pensions MATC will need all the revenue it can generate."  Dr. Hughes continued at 9:31AM that morning: "the general public does not pay attention to the goings on at MATC"

The focus is obviously that of generating more revenue, and not that of managing costs.  MATC revenue comes from the taxpayers and the students.  The implication is that taxes and tuitions can be increased since the public pays no attention.

On May 23, 2005 at 10:13AM, board member Lauren Baker (program coordinator with Milwaukee Public Schools) writes to Mark Maierle regarding MATC child care expenditures: "Jeskiewitz (State Representative Sue Jeskiewitz) thought it was OK when we explained that the centers were used as learning labs.  The administration has not pursued that line of reasoning.  Craig P. thought we should charge the child care expense to teaching and learning, thus making the centers run as a learning lab...Remember, Jeskiewitz is a Republican and needs to be vocal on these issues.  I've never felt compelled to set policy based on what Alberta (State Senator Alberta Darling) and Jeskiewitz tell us...We need to have a sophisticated view of the politics in Madison or we will be jerked around"

The apparent philosophy is that lying to politicians is "political sophistication".  The Board promotes funneling "Child Care" into another budget, thus representing it as something other than babysitting at taxpayers' expense.

On March 31, 2005 at 8:45AM, Mark Maierle writes to board member Peter Earle (Lawyer) about a person's observation that Darnell Cole (MATC President) is tight with the union, and the union holds an axe over the Board's head.  "I believe his criticism of Cole came from his perception that Cole was in the union's pocket.  It sounds like the union is again threatening a no-confidence vote.  The Board has had this ax held to our heads long enough." It seems as though the special interests get their way, and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

This simply continues the process of establishing that MATC is poorly managed and unlikely to change of