Public hears both sides on schoolsa i...

Public hears both sides on schoolsa income tax | The Columbus Dispatch

There are 10 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Apr 20, 2011, titled Public hears both sides on schoolsa income tax | The Columbus Dispatch. In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

School tax requests often spark arguments online and in newspapers, but opponents and supporters rarely debate the issues face-to-face. But last night, a crowd of about 170 district residents heard people for and against the Northridge school districta s 1 percent income-tax request have their say in a debate that was often pointed but seldom ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.

Columbus

Columbus, OH

#1 Apr 20, 2011
"........the Licking County district of about 1,500 students."

If there ever was a time to consolidate a school district with another or others, this would be a good time. And this is why Ohio is going down the tubes. There's just too many school districts. People want local control, but don't want to pay the costs of maintaining local control.

The overhead costs are eating them alive---management, equipment, buildings, vehicles, etc. Add in state mandated programs. Hiring a development director makes no sense at all. The classroom teachers are being shorted because of overhead costs. The real losers--the pupils.

Divide 1,500 by 13 grades, including kindergarten.
Ohio Born

Athens, OH

#2 Apr 20, 2011
It would be a great idea under the following circunstance:

That any income tax paid would be deducted from property taxes!
cory

Dublin, OH

#3 Apr 20, 2011
How is it that this was so one-sided? Who arranged that ?
Buckeye Bill

Columbus, OH

#4 Apr 20, 2011
The development director position is to be funded outside of the budget, with Jones and the Wallet committee offering to pay $5000.00 towards the position if the Northridge community raises the rest for the position. A great idea from the anti-levy crowd---there needs to be a wallet committee in every district forcing schools to think "outside of the wallet". We the tax payers can't continue to fund these over priced schools--the people who want to keep all of their schools fully funded at current levels need to write the checks themselves and stop standing at the corner with their hands out to the entire tax paying base.
A taxpayer

AOL

#5 Apr 20, 2011
In terms of productivity, Northridge ranks 94th in the state (out of 610 districts) and is in the 84th percentile. Their report shows expenditures for administrative, building operations, instructional, and pupil/staff support. http://www.com pareohioschools/DPI_reports.ht ml

What is of concern, however, is that the income tax would tide them over for just one year. The deficits projected by school officials indicate that they'd have to come back for 1-1/2% next year and 4% the year after that. They've been able to hold costs down fairly well until now ... why the large projected deficits?
Upnorth

Schuylkill Haven, PA

#6 Apr 20, 2011
Delve into the Superindendent's contract and you will find the problems start at the top. Besides a hefty salary, the Superindendent does not pay ANYTHING for his retirement as the school board picks up both the employer and employee side. Then, the employee side is considered pay and grosses up his salary for STRS, putting more of his retirement burden on us in future years. Then, since it will be so difficult to live on 80% of this for life, the board pays for a $7,000 per year annuity to whomever the Superindendent so chooses - and THIS also grosses up his salary. Then he gets a car allowance (so he gets "paid" to attend the sporting events he will charge the kids to play). It aint done: Throw in a cell phone stipend, and then, he gets over four weeks vacation and to add insult to injury, he can "buy back" a week of this vacation (because it is too much to really use) for cash money in his pocket. All from me and you. Where is the emergency? I repeat, the inequity between the taxpayer and the schools starts at the top. Vote no.
Buckeye Bill

Columbus, OH

#7 Apr 20, 2011
cory wrote:
How is it that this was so one-sided? Who arranged that ?
The taxpayer is always outnumbered in public forums since it is easy to find public "servants" who are willing to go stick their hand out for more money....the taxpayers are busy paying for their own lives and don't want to get into debates with those whose only solution to paying for their needs is more tax money---most on that side will only raise money on their own when the state is on their door ready to take them over....one taxpayer can make a huge difference if he stands up to the public "servants"
Buckeye Bill

Columbus, OH

#8 Apr 20, 2011
Upnorth wrote:
Delve into the Superindendent's contract and you will find the problems start at the top. Besides a hefty salary, the Superindendent does not pay ANYTHING for his retirement as the school board picks up both the employer and employee side. Then, the employee side is considered pay and grosses up his salary for STRS, putting more of his retirement burden on us in future years. Then, since it will be so difficult to live on 80% of this for life, the board pays for a $7,000 per year annuity to whomever the Superindendent so chooses - and THIS also grosses up his salary. Then he gets a car allowance (so he gets "paid" to attend the sporting events he will charge the kids to play). It aint done: Throw in a cell phone stipend, and then, he gets over four weeks vacation and to add insult to injury, he can "buy back" a week of this vacation (because it is too much to really use) for cash money in his pocket. All from me and you. Where is the emergency? I repeat, the inequity between the taxpayer and the schools starts at the top. Vote no.
Hey up north I bet you are a fine citizen from Mt Vernon? Talk about another school budget out of control.....
Upnorth

Schuylkill Haven, PA

#9 Apr 20, 2011
Superindendent John Shepard's salary for 2010: $103,144, estimated pick-up for employee side of board paid retirement: $15,000, add board paid annity: $7,000, add other misc: (ie, board paid difference to get 100% health insurance, board paid extra life insurance, car allowance, unused vacation days paid in cash) $4,500 = $130,000. And, he will get 80% of this for life, backed by you, me, and the students when they start working after graduation. The students don't need to read Dickens - they are living it.
Columbus

Columbus, OH

#10 Apr 20, 2011
Columbus wrote:
"........the Licking County district of about 1,500 students."
If there ever was a time to consolidate a school district with another or others, this would be a good time. And this is why Ohio is going down the tubes. There's just too many school districts. People want local control, but don't want to pay the costs of maintaining local control.
The overhead costs are eating them alive---management, equipment, buildings, vehicles, etc. Add in state mandated programs. Hiring a development director makes no sense at all. The classroom teachers are being shorted because of overhead costs. The real losers--the pupils.
Divide 1,500 by 13 grades, including kindergarten.
For the one person who disagreed with my comment--I didn't see your solution to the this problem. Again, the real losers are the students.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Croton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Danielle Krzosky (Apr '15) Sep 16 Haha 20
Denise Ruza Sep 11 Billy Higgs 1
Cuckolding Sep 11 Cuckold44 1
Loretta Blair Sep 11 Rita Runion 2
Anyone know this trash ball (Mar '17) Sep 9 Victor D 4
Toilet Sep 9 Victor D 3
New Stuff in Johnstown (Jan '12) Aug '17 spree 4

Croton Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Croton Mortgages