Tuesday, April 10, 2012

“Forecasting” on Lake Basebegone: Kestrel, MRRA, and shopping for SOB’s and OPM.

“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you…you may know that your society is doomed.”

       – Ayn Rand – Atlas Shrugged

Before we go much further on this post, let’s give credit where credit is due.  A few months back, as the Kestrel cookie was crumbling, a certain State Senator from Brunswick, who we affectionately called Stangali in a recent post, was quoted thusly:

“We’re not losing jobs to New Hampshire, period,” Gerzofsky said Wednesday.

Turns out he was true to his word, and as rare as that is in a politician, we need to praise him for keeping his word.  We did not lose jobs to New Hampshire, just as he assured us.  Nope; we lost them to Wisconsin.

In the same days, it was reported that Kestrel head Alan Klapmeier

said he would never pit one state against another for financial gain.

Did you know that the word GULLIBLE is not in the dictionary? Oh, sure, the word gullible is in your Funk & Wagnalls, but GULLIBLE is not.

That’s because there is a new and higher definition needed to adequately describe the suckers we’ve all been in the Kestrel Kaper, and the larger electro-political phenomena in play here. And your correspondent has been as GULLIBLE as they come in this, and horror of horrors, may actually be complicit in sending you down the same slippery path, if only by editorial errors of omission.

There was a red flag that should have warned us about what was to come early on:

In this photo, the new Kestrel aircraft prototype is flying directly crosswise to the runway pattern at BNAS at low altitude. Our guess is that this would get you a slap on the hand from your flight instructor, no matter who you are and how inactive the runways might be.  Or more appropriately, a kick in the cajones once you’re back on the ground.

Unless, of course, you can simply go back to Photoshop, and change your direction by 90 degrees or so. And you’ve got the right SOB’s covering your six.

As things have played out, the Kestrel Kaper was krosswise with everything about MRRA and their oversight of base redevelopment, award winners though they may be.

First, a confession; it’s no secret that your humble correspondent is cynical, aged, and a bit of a crank when called for. We’ve never done anything to persuade you otherwise. We began our illustrious blogging career following the publishing of a number of our columns on Oxford Aviation in The Ostrich. 

The editors and publisher, whether they realized it or not, worked hard to convince us we should look for another outlet for our efforts.  We’d like to think our work sparked the interest of Steve Mistler, then at The Forecaster, who did first rate investigative reporting on Oxford, and before long, MRRA’s love affair with Jim Horowitz was on the rocks.  FLee Bailey tried briefly to intervene, but he couldn’t make the hand fit the glove, to borrow an image.

We believe we are as ‘self-aware,’ if not more so, than any ‘public official’ or local ‘journalist',’ when it comes to commenting frankly on town matters, especially as they relate to the watershed economic issues of base redevelopment.

Accordingly, when the news first broke of Alan Klapmeier and Kestrel Aviation signing up as the shining star that would be the first step in bringing ‘as many as 17,000’ new jobs to the redeveloping base, creating a revolution in private aircraft development and manufacture right here in our own backyard, we bit our tongue. And trust us, it was a whole lot harder than saying that Harriet Beecher Stowe School is a ‘beautiful new facility.’

We read that Klapmeier believed he could raise $100 million in private investment funding to provide the capital foundation for his revolutionary new aircraft design. We remember wondering how long it would take to recoup $100 million in venture capital when you’re building airplanes that sell for something like $3 million, with a profit in the range of $250,000 each.

Unless our math is wrong, all other details aside, you’d have to sell 400 of those airplanes to amortize the principle of the venture capital stake in your business, without interest or return on investment.  That’s before the business became profitable on its own.

And without any consideration for operating expenses and overhead. But what do we know compared to Director Levesque and Senator Gerzofsky and Congresswoman Pingree, who have far more experience in the private business world than we do?

After all the dirt we dished on Oxford, we decided to shut our big traps on the Kestrel/Klapmeier undertaking, and give them the benefit of the doubt.  Boy, were we wrong.

So Where Are We Today?

We’ll get to the recent Forecaster items in a moment; they reflect back on many of our well known SOB’s, and the various OPM dispensers they employ.

While “Occupy Wall Street” nimrods are busy protesting capitalism, it’s clear there are other aspects of our economic ‘system’ far more worthy of protest, and government is right in the thick of it. Campers and sign carriers should be occupying Washington in protest of crony capitalism.

Kudos to The Forecaster for two items in last week’s Midcoast Edition: a lengthy analysis by Emily Guerin, and a surprisingly frank editorial by Mo Mehlsak.   Now we find out we’re losing Emily to greener pastures; all the best to you, Ms. Guerin.

The two items linked above have some worthy quotes.  Here are a few.

From Mo’s editorial:

Is Kestrel Aircraft the kind of company the state, and the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, should have been trying to attract, and should officials have done a better job scrutinizing the company before seeming to fall head over heels in love with it?

Guerin's report suggests the answer to the former is probably not, while the response to the latter is yes, definitely.

From Emily’s report:

"One of the hardest things about the aviation industry is convincing the business world that there's a market," Klapmeier said in July 2010.

Klapmeier expressed frustration ….. about how difficult it had been to get the financing he assumed was in the bag.

….a rift between Kestrel and Coastal Enterprises Inc., the Wiscasset-based private, nonprofit community development institution that provided tax credits to the company, led Kestrel to look elsewhere for financing.

We don’t know about you, but an ‘institution’ that hands out tax credits to companies is not a private operation as we see it.  If you are dealing in government provided, taxpayer funded financing, you are, at a minimum, a ‘quasi-governmental’ organization.

"We're stewards of the taxpayer dollar," Spies said. "So across our whole portfolio we're trying to limit that risk."

It only gets better:

Klapmeier told a reporter he was frustrated by the bureaucracy involved to get New Market Tax Credits. He complained about the excessive amount of due diligence required and the "layers upon layers" of assurances he had to provide. Klapmeier wanted to  convince his investors to believe in him with an emotional appeal, not by providing reams of detailed financial information.

"What we are removing from the process of life is the ability for people to rely on judgement," he said. "Is this really the right way to protect ourselves?"

"I believe the fastest way to bring closure to this funding gap, is to utilize political assets to pressure Coastal to honor its commitment," Kestrel spokesman Scott Prinz wrote to Gervais in an Oct. 26, 2011, email.

Imagine if you were seeking a mortgage to buy a home, or a new car loan.  Would you have the guts to complain about the detailed financial information you were asked to provide?  And rely instead on an ‘emotional appeal?’

We’re about through here, but we have one more observation, and that is that Johnny ‘Protocols’ Richardson and FLee Bailey avoided the spotlight like the plague since all this came about.  If even THEY thought Kestrel was a non-starter of a deal, what does THAT tell you?

Solyndra, Kestrel, Oxford Aviation; is there really any difference?  Not really.

What we really need here on the base is a huge windmill farm.  If we were King for a Day, we’d look for expert investors in the local area  to risk THEIR OWN MONEY on such a venture.

Wouldn’t you?

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Afterthoughts on the PYMWYMI post…

As often happens, added thoughts that occurred to us as we were walking the poochies, in a light rain.

We posted this just a little while ago:

===================================================

That petition, by the way, reads:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Brunswick School Board and the Brunswick Town Council to prepare and approve a school budget for 2012-2013 that fully funds the educational needs of the community, that preserves the quality and reputation of the Brunswick public schools, and that does not cut the many valuable programs that enrich and improve young students’ lives. By signing below we pledge to stand by the Brunswick Town Council as they work to fund the public schools.”

If you read that statement, it really boils down to a lot of generic squish.  How much more forceful it would have been if it said ‘we the undersigned are willing to pay 10% more on our property taxes,’ or ‘we the undersigned are willing to pay $700 more in property taxes.’  

Instead, they use language with plenty of wiggle room like ‘fully fund,’ ‘preserve,’ ‘many valuable programs,’ and ‘stand by.’  Don’t want to get too pinned down, do we?

=====================================================

We realized that the “imagine and invest” crowd may be having trouble coming up with dollar values to place on their convictions. 

So, in keeping with our always helpful point of view, we offer the following guidelines for monetizing their devotion:

‘Fully fund:’ Suggested minimum tax increase supported is $500.

‘Preserve:’ Wow; this is a tough one, but let’s go with $300 minimum.

‘Many valuable programs:’  $200 per program doesn’t seem too much to ask, does it?

‘Stand by:’  This is a pretty sweeping vow; it should be worth at least $500 per year as well.

In other words, depending on their personal preferences, we would expect the devotees to volunteer at least $1,500 more a year in property taxes.

The good news is that they don’t have to volunteer anything, because what they really want is for town officials to compel all of us to pay whatever they want, backed up by the force of law.  It’s so much more egalitarian and ‘fair’ than paying for what they want.

Imagine if the same principle applied to everything else you supported.  And imagine if you could compel your employer to fork over the necessary pay increases.

The bad news is that the imagine crowd is putting forward an argument that these increases should recur annually.  So even if you think you’re just going to suck it up this year, what will you do in the coming years?

Use your imagination, because there may not be any other options.

PYMWYMI Update: goose eggs all the way around

We told you a week ago in this post that we’d provide an updated total of individual commitments to pay increased property taxes, by names and amounts, as they were reported to us.  Such reporting is specifically intended to salute loyal “Imagine our future” and “Invest in our schools” folks around our town. 

At least those among them who adhere to the PYMWYMI principle: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is.

You know who we mean; they’re the same ones proudly displaying those signs in their front yards with that message -  that very unpolitical message, which is not intended to influence anyone’s vote on anything, not even yours.

Well, you might think we’re shocked, shocked at the results so far, but we’re really not.  Here they are:

- A grand total of zero persons (and zero dollars, obviously) reporting in directly to Other Side, by any of the channels open to them.

- A grand total of zero yard signs that have been augmented with this suggested statement:

“This family cares enough to pay X dollars more in property taxes to invest in our schools.”

(While we haven’t seen every single yard sign, we’ve seen a large enough sample to conclude no one has gone public in the true PYMWYMI spirit.)

- A grand total of zero signers of the petition at Brunswick Community United that have stated how much more they will pay in property taxes next year to prove their PYMWYMI street cred.

That petition, by the way, reads:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Brunswick School Board and the Brunswick Town Council to prepare and approve a school budget for 2012-2013 that fully funds the educational needs of the community, that preserves the quality and reputation of the Brunswick public schools, and that does not cut the many valuable programs that enrich and improve young students’ lives. By signing below we pledge to stand by the Brunswick Town Council as they work to fund the public schools.”

If you read that statement, it really boils down to a lot of generic squish.  How much more forceful it would have been if it said ‘we the undersigned are willing to pay 10% more on our property taxes,’ or ‘we the undersigned are willing to pay $700 more in property taxes.’  

Instead, they use language with plenty of wiggle room like ‘fully fund,’ ‘preserve,’ ‘many valuable programs,’ and ‘stand by.’  Don’t want to get too pinned down, do we?

So, folks, after a full week of standing by for incoming numbers, we can report that the grand total pledged so far is, we’re afraid, a great big goose egg.

The reason we aren’t shocked is that for years we’ve watched speakers at public meetings avow their willingness to pay more in taxes, and then suddenly go awol when asked to sign a list giving their name and amount they’d be willing to pay.  Doesn’t sound much different than a showy petition, does it? 

Other than having to put your money where your mouth is, that is.

As long as we’ve got your attention, we’ve got one more item to relay before we say ta ta on this post.  We came upon this curious little item:

At the new Stowe Elementary School, the building is causing ‘unexpected technology demands.’  Turns out, according to a spokesman, ‘the design of the school leaves no alcoves for printers and no space in the hallways for those units either.’  She adds ‘we had to put 40 printers in the school that we never anticipated.’

Too bad we didn’t have the school designed by professionals who had done this sort of thing before, with input from those who knew what the needs were.  If we had, maybe this problem could have been avoided.

Makes you wonder what a health care system designed by those in government who know best will be like.

Looking on the bright side, though, at least we didn’t end up with open classroom design, or flat roofs where snow load build up could be a problem.

Saturday, April 7, 2012

“Imagine” if voting no meant saying yes to a 10% property tax increase.

We don’t know what the zealots behind school budget increases are cooking up at the moment, but here at Side offices, our imagination has been pondering the possibilities before us for budgets and tax increases.

Imagine this scenario.  In June, in addition to other primary races, Brunswick voters will get to vote yes or no on the budget the school board approves and the town council agrees to put before the electorate.  This is the election that town officials have determined this sign is not intended to influence:



We’ll leave that dead horse alone for the moment and move on.

As we understand it, the School Department is facing a roughly $3 million revenue ‘shortfall,’ or in street talk, a budgetary ‘hole.’  Such a sum equates to about a 10% property tax increase.
(This is not the same as the ‘holes’ you may be driving through as road paving funds get shunted to the school budget, thanks to our mischievous legislators.)

Imagine that voters do not approve the new budget sent to ballot, as unlikely as that is.  Knowing how much of a budget increase the school department will propose is irrelevant to our point here, other than a closing question for the interested student.

It’s our understanding that when voters do not approve a budget proposal, the school department begins the new fiscal year with the same budget as the fiscal year just ended.  Meanwhile, they prepare a revised budget to put before the voters.

In the worst case then, to avoid red-ink, the town council would have to grant a 10% property tax increase just for the school component of the total town budget.  We don’t know yet how much the municipal side will be looking for in tax rate increase.

That’s 10% without considering the obligations the school department will take on with a new teachers contract, the details of which have not been disclosed.  If it includes ‘cost increases beyond our control,’ the classic whitewash in such matters, on the scale of typical contracts, you can make that budgetary ‘hole’ deeper by another 2% or so in property tax increase.

We cannot speak to the law regarding teachers contracts under such a scenario, but our default view is that the MEA has had the legislature in the palm of their hand since forever, and statute more than likely stands in their favor.

We’ll look to town and school officials to enlighten us in such matters.  We know how much they enjoy coming to us with crisp revelations on tax matters, and we’ll gladly publish any corrections or clarifications they provide us here on these pages.

The really important question for you to imagine an answer to is this: 

If voting down the proposed budget could result in a property tax increase of 10% or more just to continue school funding at this year’s levels, how much larger a tax increase will be required to fund the budget they ask voters to approve?

As the sign says, “Imagine our (tax) future.” 

And “Invest (much higher taxes) in our schools.”

Maybe you should call your bank and ask them to ‘imagine’ you have more money in your checking account.  Good luck with that, pilgrim.

And in case you were wondering, the foregoing is not meant to influence any election outcome, in keeping with the decision by town officials.

Friday, April 6, 2012

“Imagine:” Stangali, Quid-pro-quos, TIFs/tiffs, and mischief

image

We introduced you to the blog behind these signs in a prior post, even though we can’t tell you who the person is behind the blog.  They have designed their site so that you can’t tell who runs it, nor can you contact the blog or comment on it.  That’s quite a different model than your favorite local ‘alternative media outlet.’

This post appeared on their site in recent days:

==================================================

More mischief in Augusta

Posted on April 2, 2012 by Brunswick Community United

We’ve learned that state government officials were up to no good last week, trying to implement a measure that would have devastating effects on Brunswick’s future municipal budgets.

Benet Pols wrote on his website:

“Someone, their precise identity is still unknown, slipped an item into the supplemental budget that would have assigned 80% of all new taxes generated as real estate on the Navy base is privatized and redeveloped to the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority.  Brunswick would have only retained 20% of the real estate taxes for real estate.  In Brunswick.  This is not an April Fool’s joke.”

Many of our town councilors are understandably appalled, and MRRA officials themselves have reportedly come out against this. We urge those concerned about the prospects for education in Brunswick to have a look at Pols’s site, and to follow his suggestions about contacting our state delegation to ensure that this proposal is never implemented. If it were passed, it would severely damage Brunswick’s abilities to fund our long-term municipal needs, including our schools.

UPDATE: Benet Pols reports via Facebook:

I think anyone who was planning on calling their legislator regarding the tax situation at the base can put those plans on hold. We’re fairly certain that the governor’s office has withdrawn the proposal for this legislative session. I’ll update again if circumstances change.

It sounds as if the people in Augusta realized that the Brunswick community was paying attention to this…

================================================

We’re reminded of our working years in the last century, during which we had the pleasure of working with federal officials of the highest order, including the Committee and Staff headed by one Rep. Jack Murtha, at the time considered the most powerful person in Washington, because he controlled the purse strings for Defense Appropriations, the single largest discretionary sum in the entire federal budget, and therefore, the means to wield incredible power.

As it turns out, Chairman Murtha, now deceased and exposed for what he was, was attempting to kill off a product purchased by the Navy from our employer for years, and have it replaced, against the Navy’s will, with a product line that would be manufactured in his home district in Pennsylvania.  We won’t bother you with the gory details, which led to our chronic distrust of just about everything in Government, and especially those who have been around long enough to amass power that is not used in the public interest.

Let us highlight one aspect: harassment with all sorts of letters and audit processes meant to grind the contracting process, already extremely ponderous, to a near halt.  It is through this harassment that your young and trusting correspondent lost his political virginity and learned what ‘quid-pro-quo’ meant in legislative circles.

Our employer was headquartered in California, and Murtha’s home constituents were in Johnstown, PA.  One day, we received a letter signed by a Congressman from  Louisiana, who threatened us with intense congressional scrutiny if we did not yield to his wishes.  We could think of no stake the author had in the matter from either end, but he was on Murtha’s committee, and you might recall that Murtha was a Democrat.

The subject congressman was Bob Livingston, a Republican.  In talking to staffers during that time, we learned that this was a fairly standard way of providing plausible deniability for Chairman Murtha, and also was usually a ‘quid-pro-quo,’ with the second part of the exchange often unclear.

You may also recall that Rep Livingston was poised to become Speaker of the House when the Republicans regained the majority, and then suddenly withdrew his pursuit of that office, and shortly thereafter, left congress completely.

It turned out that Rep Livingston had “dallied” somewhere along the line, meaning he had something in his closet that could be pulled out when it served Chairman Murtha’s purposes.  Our belief is that this was the ‘quo’ in the aforementioned letter episode; Livingston would write the letter, and Murtha would not open the closet. 

It is our further belief that Murtha’s key to Livingston’s closet was behind his declining to pursue the speakership, and then departing congress shortly thereafter.

We were reminded of these uplifting experiences as we absorbed the above cited post from Brunswick Community United. 

It appeared to us, chronically curious as we are, that the post was a none-to-subtle attempt to lay some blame for schoolie unhappiness on the desk of the Governor, rather than look deeper and put the attention where it may well be better placed.

So in keeping with the source’s theme, we put on our “imagine” cap and came up with this scenario:

- Imagine if there was an Executive Director at the MRRA who formerly served as Commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development under prior administrations.  And that a certain State Senator from Brunswick was very tight with the former Commissioner and current ED, and had worked with him for years when he was in Augusta.

- Imagine if the current Commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development had been in the Department since well before the new administration came into office, and was a Deputy Commissioner when it did.  And that Deputy became Acting Commissioner when the individual appointed by the new Governor stepped down, and was then elevated to the top spot.

- Imagine if a termed out current member of the minority in the house was serving on the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee.  And that member represents a nearby town (Freeport) that happens to be in the Senate District of a certain State Senator.  And imagine that the two served together in the legislature for six years when their party was in the majority, and they ran everything.

- Imagine if all of the above had collective experience in the fine art of budgetary and appropriations ‘mischief’ that swamped the experience of a multi-decade minority that suddenly found itself in the majority, with a new Governor to boot.

- Imagine if a certain Senator was looking to cause some mischief for local town officials, which he has been known to do in the past, and with whom there is no love lost.  At the same time, he could help out his good friend at MRRA, and do it all with plausible deniability.

To us, this seems like a perfect “imagined” combination of circumstances to provide plausible deniability to a certain State Senator from Brunswick, or as we think of him here, Stangali, while he and his associates in the minority set the Governor up for a fall.

Too bad someone else discovered what was going on and called attention to it before it had a chance to get buried in the bill sent to the Governor.  We understand a certain State Senator from Brunswick was shocked, shocked when he was told of the situation.

Inquiring minds would want to know what really happened here, wouldn’t they?, rather than protect the identity of those involved, while shifting suspicion to the Governor’s Office?

If you’re an inquiring mind, maybe you should ask a certain State Senator from Brunswick what really happened, and when you get the answer, be sure to let us know so we can publish it.   You never know; a town councilor ‘blogger extraordinaire’ might even see it and choose to publicize it on his media outlet.

Adding to the ‘imagine’ dimension is this agenda item for the Town Council Meeting this coming Monday:

BRUNSWICK TOWN COUNCIL
Agenda
April 9, 2012
Executive Session – 6:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m.
Executive session – Economic Development to discuss the MRRA TIF per 1 M.R.S.A. §405(6)(C)

One wonders whether a certain State Senator from Brunswick will be at the Executive Session.  There are TIFs, and then there are tiffs. 

Seems like both could be on the table.

By the way, when you talk to Stangali, please tell him that Other Side sends its regards.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Suspicions confirmed: ‘for the children’ exclusion applies to School Budget campaign signs

Just yesterday, we remarked thusly about the School Budget Campaign Signs appearing around town:

These signs are clearly related to the June ballot issue regarding approval of the proposed school budget.  Which we’re pretty sure is more than 60 days away from when the signs began appearing.

But as we all know, when ‘it’s for the children,’ the heavy authoritarian hand of government is easily dismissed by those who care more.  Along with anything else that gets in the way.

Now we learn that cognizant town staff has concluded that the subject signs do not qualify as Political Campaign Signs, which the code defines as “temporary signs bearing messages relating to an election, primary or referendum.”

Just as we suggested, the signs qualify for an ‘it’s for the children’ exclusion. 

That aside, if the signs aren’t intended to communicate a message regarding the school budget referendum, just what the hell are they intended for?  Maybe this is what the town council meant when they said they’d get behind the School Department to help them through the looming crisis, among other things.

This one doesn’t pass the smell test, overactive olfactory imagination or not.  Not that it’s any surprise.  Loopholes, thy name is schoolies.

We believe we’ll start a business creating a new genre of political signs that follow this format: “Foghorn-for the children.”

If you were running,  wouldn’t you like your signs all over town as early as possible?

Seek and ye shall find, as the old saying goes!

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Random mumblings, imagination, investing, etc.

DSCN0353

Signs like the one in the picture above have appeared around town as part of the predicted blitzkrieg.  The group Brunswick Community United is obviously behind the signs, or in front of them, or however else you wish to position them.  Congratulations to the Media and Political Action Committee of the School Board for inspiring such activism.

We feel compelled to provide this passage from relevant town sign codes:

604.7 Political Campaign Signs. Political Campaign Signs are temporary signs bearing messages relating to an election, primary or referendum. Political Campaign Signs are permitted on private property no sooner than 60 days before an election, primary or referendum and must be removed no later than 5 days after the same election, primary or referendum. Size shall be limited to 8 s.f. (Amended 12/1/97 R, 9/4/01 E)

These signs are clearly related to the June ballot issue regarding approval of the proposed school budget.  Which we’re pretty sure is more than 60 days away from when the signs began appearing.

But as we all know, when ‘it’s for the children,’ the heavy authoritarian hand of government is easily dismissed by those who care more.  Along with anything else that gets in the way.

We’re led to imagine how much more effective these signs would be if they read:

“Imagine our future”

“Invest in our schools”

“This family cares enough to

pay X dollars more in property taxes

to invest in our schools.”

“X” should be four figures minimum, we would think.  It’s the PYMWYMI (put your money where your mouth is) concept we mentioned the other day.  We suggested the Brunswick Community United group update their petition page to include how much each signer is willing to pay in increased property taxes, so that a running total of support could be posted.

Apparently they’re having trouble getting commitments from the devoted individuals who signed up.  Mouth is one thing, money is another.

In a related development, Rich Ellis, the number-centric school board member, became the first such official to comment on one of our posts.  We thank him for his remarks.  You can read his comment  here.  If things work as we hope, you’ll be able to read our reply on the same page.

It crossed our mind to ask Rich just how much he is willing to pay in increased property taxes in the coming fiscal year to provide the investment in our schools he deems appropriate, and to show true leadership.  He’s welcome to do so in a comment on this post.  But it doesn’t seem fair to expect him to go out on a limb by himself.

So we trust he can convince the entire school board, and while he’s at it, School Department employees who live in town, to publicly declare how much more they’re willing to pay in the coming year.  And wouldn’t it be fun to hear numbers from supportive town councilors as well.

Real numbers, personally stated, should provide just the sort of inspiration run of the mill taxpayers need, and the hard data the school establishment needs.  Failure to make such a public declaration, on the other hand, could raise suspicions that signs and web sites are just so much theater intended to have emotion sway voters minds, regardless of reality. 

And that coercive tax increases are the only viable alternative.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

(As a public service to our readers, we will publish weekly totals of individual commitments for increased property tax payments as they are reported to us.  If we make no such reports, you can think what you will.)

MaineWire: Yogi Berra, the American Dream, and Maine

Allow me to offer this corollary to Yogi’s thesis: “The future ain’t what it ought to be.”

I’ve thought a lot about this in recent years, if only because of what I’ve seen in Brunswick. Two funeral homes have built major additions at the same time we’ve been shutting down elementary schools. Readers familiar with Maine’s demographic trends and growing entitlement culture would have trouble conjuring up a rosy outlook for our future. Unless you believe a declining population and growing dependence on government are the keys to a utopian (and “sustainable”) Maine. We have more than enough true believers who do.

Read the column here.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Random mumblings on fairness, school funding, and anything else we feel like yapping about

One of the most endearing qualities of our beloved, perfect town of Brunswick, where all the women are good-looking, all the men are hard working, all the children are above average, all the schools are excellent, and all town facilities are embarrassments (or  soon will be) is a near-religious devotion to fairness.  Its close cousins equity, fair share, social justice, and economic justice are always right near by.

In our years of observing events here in town, we can think of no finer example of fairness than the pay-per-bag trash movement of several years ago.  Ever since, fairness has been on display five days a week on curbs here and curbs there.  And on our editorial minds.

The theory advanced by the trash-warriors to bring us to this plateau of enlightenment was that “it isn’t fair” for you, who perhaps sets out a coffee can full of trash per week, to pay the same for collection services as the reprobate down the street who sets out four 32 gallon trash cans every week. 

As a remedy, they declared, “it’s only fair” that you pay for the collection services you consume, and the easiest way to do that is making you pay per bag of trash.  Even more, it isn’t right for your fair share of the landfill to be gobbled up by yon reprobate before you’ve had a chance to make use of it.  Pay per bag wins again, by generating funds for land fill sustainability, while reducing the demand for space overall.

Yea, verily, the fairness choir intoned, and duly inspired, we haven’t looked at things the same since.

Sadly, just a few years ago we suggested that the same principle of fairness be applied to library services by instituting ‘pay per book.’  Inexplicably, paying for services you consume took on the nature of heresy.  It made for interesting public commentary, and elicited much vacuous doublespeak. We concluded the enlightened had much to learn before achieving black belt status in the fairness arena.

Given the current state of civic affairs, with broad public discussion of how to best make use of town assets, both fiscal and otherwise, we figure it’s time to revisit fairness, and to see if those to whom much has been revealed have risen to the next rank.

The signs have been promising, if mixed, given suggestions of foregoing a new town hall, and in the minds of some, even a new police facility, in order to be fair to the children (the teachers, actually, as we’ll explain sometime soon.)

In that spirit, we offer, for your consideration, suggestions as to how our crises might be resolved.  You do realize, as any self-respecting citizen would, that our problems are revenue based.  Spending has nothing to do with it, in keeping with cultural norms for fiscal discipline, from family levels to federal levels.  So all but a few of our thoughts will be revenue based.

- Sussman-Pingree:  The all-purpose revenue bailout mechanism for progressive interests in Maine. This is about the teachers union, which puts it right in S. Donnie’s wheel-house.  Calling Senator Stan, the minority man; we’re looking for a quick $3 million infusion, good buddy.  Get back to us as quick as you can.

- Brunswick Community United:  “Imagine our schools, imagine our future.”  This site should be renamed Brunswick Residents for Higher Spending and Higher Taxes, because that’s what it’s really about.

Remember WYSIWYG (wizziwig) in the early PC era?  Now it’s time for the PYMWYMI (pimwimi) era.

Some folks are so caring that they’ll give a needy person the shirt off your back to prove their compassion.  Others will gladly put your money where their mouth is.  Go here to find those who will.

We think it’s time for them to join the PYMWYMI movement.  They can do this by publicly declaring, when they sign the petition, how much more they’re willing to pay in property taxes.  Or, “put your money where your mouth is.”  Their commitment and their web site will be ever so much more credible when they do.  We can’t wait to see the totals.

- Pay per bus ride:  Consistent with the pay per bag principle, we believe those students who ride our school buses should pay for the privilege.  How about $1 each way?  That should generate roughly $500,000 a year, with consummate fairness.

- Pay per book: You already know the idea, and we hope the bookies are more enlightened than they were a few years ago.  We suggest they forego $400,000 of their annual stipend from the town, and make it up in user fees.  It’s only fair.  Unless fairness is unfair in their eyes.

- Public way maintenance:  We suggest the Public Works Department switch to sand only treatment for icy/snowy roads instead of the usual salt/sand mix.  They’ll spend less, and we’ll save thousands in vehicle repairs caused by rust eating away at our vehicle underbodies, brake systems, and suspensions.

Further, we should have a ‘pay per plow’ fee.  When it snows, property owners get assessed for a plowing event.  Mild winter, low fees; bad winter, high fees.  It’s only fair.

And here’s an ‘out of the box’ idea: how about mounting snow-plows to our school buses?  That would allow them to do double duty, plowing the streets as they go out in the morning for their runs.  This is innovation of the finest sort!

In the same vein, there must be a way to assess a ‘pay per pothole’ fee.  It’s only fair that we who avoid them the most pay for the privilege.

- Pay per Kid:  If you support the fairness inherent in pay per bag trash collection, you can’t possibly fail to support pay per kid school funding.  Why should a person with no students in the school system pay the same for education services as the household with one, two, three or more students in the system?  It just isn’t fair, is it?  If you argue otherwise, you argue against pay per bag.

- Pay per sport:  Once again, if you are a fair play advocate, you are stuck.  This is not an issue of math, writing, or reading.  Not only should you pay for your kids being in school, you should pay for them participating in costly sports activities involving equipment, transportation, and other specific expenses.  Thinking otherwise is a quaint notion whose time is long past.  Your neighbor is no more obligated to pay for your child’s football expenses than you are to pay for his Friday night pizza outing with his family.

- Pay per benefit:  Public sector employees, and most specifically teachers, have been receiving cadillac benefits for something like a nickel on the dollar.  This level of subsidy is unheard of, especially on a guaranteed, contractual basis, in other economic sectors.  If it’s really ‘for the children,’ school boards would be aggressively moving towards contracts that place more of the cost burden on employees, not taxpayers.

- Pay per parking spot:  How can it be fair for the rest of us to pay for the creation and maintenance of free daily parking spots for high school students, downtown shoppers, and in-town employees?  Pay per bag equity principles demand that  parking meters be installed, and that high school students pay $3-5 dollars a day to park their cars on school property.  If that results in fewer cars being used, shazamm!  Less carbon footprint, less addiction to the global masters of fossil fuel supply.  No self-respecting sustainability advocate could possibly object.

- Competitive bids for Insurance:  As we reported some months back, our School Department spends upwards of $4 million a year on various forms of insurance for employee benefit coverage.  We can find no indication that these purchases are made on a competitive basis; in fact, just the  opposite appears to be true.  Nearly every dollar is spent to purchase coverage through the State teachers union and the Maine Municipal Association, each of which extracts considerable fees to fund their advocacy efforts.  Or, more specifically, to fund political causes they favor.

Our estimate is that regular competitive practices could save from $300,000 to $500,000 a year, or even more.  So what’s the problem?  You figure it out; you can use the mental exercise.

- PPBAPPBAB:  Pay per bong and pay per beer at Bowdoin.  The local college’s long standing commitment to ‘service learning,’ not to mention their privileged status in the property tax domain, makes this a no-brainer for pumping up town revenue.  We pledge to recommend it all be dedicated to the schools, in honor of its source.  At $1 per hit, we could be looking at $500,000 or more per year.

- Teacher step increases:  Under the current contract, just about every teacher gets a $1547 annual ‘step increase’ simply for sticking around for another year.  The annual general increase of 3% or so is on top of this.  With 200 plus teachers, this step increase amounts to more than $300,000 annually, and is not related to merit or performance. If we are in extremis, shouldn’t the school board be working hard to recapture those funds to offset our ‘revenue shortfall?’  For the children?  Or don’t they matter the most?

- Budget surplus:  We’ve discovered recently that the school department doesn’t make a practice of reporting actual expenditures compared to budgeted amounts as the town does on a monthly basis.  In recent years, annual expenditures have run roughly $3 million below budget allocations.  That’s roughly the exact amount cited as the revenue gap for the coming year.  Sounds to us like real spending has been running well enough below the show-budget to make the gap for the coming year disappear with a simple stroke of the pen.

So there you have it.  Proposals based on the universally accepted and morally superior concept of fairness, which means they are above reproach.  Unless you believe pay per bag is a flawed and immoral policy.

While a detailed accounting is required, we’re confident consultants can be found to prove the creative suggestions just disclosed will more than offset perceived revenue challenges for the years ahead.

And if you can’t trust consultants, who can you trust?

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Trifecta Part Deux

Lagging (gnawing?) thoughts, because there’s no such thing as a horse that’s too dead to beat:

clip_image002

“What belongs to you, you tend to take care of; what belongs to no one or everyone tends to fall into disrepair.”

(see Footnote 1)

“Sound policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not simply short-run effects and a few people.”

(see Footnote 2)

Another point or two from the special meeting Tuesday night.  A number of people, both elected and otherwise, mentioned the pressing capital needs of the School Department, in addition to ‘municipal needs.’  Which clearly sets up an interesting dilemma for all involved.

It was said that Jordan Acres (currently closed), Hawthorne, Coffin, and BJS are all in need of major work, and that the latter is over-crowded, we think.  We swear we sensed a slight whiff of ‘time to build more new schools’ in the air, but we are known for our overactive olfactory imagination.   On the other hand, our perfect little town seems to be suffering a Brass Plaque Syndrome (BPS) epidemic.  What’s that old proverb about pride?

We believe it was also stated that the high school is ‘at capacity.’  It must be from the thousands of people that have flooded into town to replace the military population.  Nobody would try to mislead us, would they?

Which leads to another question regarding the School Board:

  • Can you recall the School Board ever holding a public meeting to demonstrate proactive stewardship and oversight of School Department facilities?  Including making sure that snow is removed from flat roofs on a timely basis?  Note: wringing of hands over the latest proposal from the administration does not qualify as proactive stewardship or oversight.

Sounds like a food fight of sorts could be brewing.  “The children,” or the police?  “The children,” or town staff? 

Unless you believe in the train fairy.

You know who that is, don’t you?  It’s the secret friend that will bring carloads of money to town on that Amtrak train.  The same secret friend that’s paying to make it happen, and will pay to keep the train running since it can’t pay it’s own way.

Don’t worry, be happy.

One last item for your edification.  If you don’t think this year’s budget theatrics will set new records in dramatic staging and screen-plays, you might trip on over to this site, which, if you weren’t paying attention, you might think belongs to the School Department.  It even has nice looking school bus graphics. 

Well, it doesn’t belong to the officials in the School Department, though you can’t tell who is running it.  We have it from an authoritative source, however, that it’s operated by a member of the Bowdoin Faculty, which gives it a nice ‘grass-roots’ character.

They’ve kindly posted one of the School Department’s recent briefings on K-8 budget considerations, which you can find here.

You don’t have to be a PowerPoint Warrior to fully appreciate the contents and what they reveal.  We could go on for hours about this, but you really don’t want us to do that.

We did send them that budget data we laboriously compiled a few weeks ago, but apparently the webmaster hasn’t found the time to post it for ‘the parents.’  You know how it is when you’ve got four class periods a week to teach, and have to have 4 hours of office time as well.  It can really cramp your blogging time.

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Footnotes:

1)  This essentially illuminates the magic of private property. It explains so much about the failure of socialized economies the world over.

In the old Soviet empire, governments proclaimed the superiority of central planning and state ownership. They wanted to abolish or at least minimize private property because they thought that private ownership was selfish and counterproductive. With the government in charge, they argued, resources would be utilized for the benefit of everybody.

What was once the farmer’s food became "the people’s food," and the people went hungry. What was once the entrepreneur’s factory became "the people’s factory," and the people made do with goods so shoddy there was no market for them beyond the borders.

We now know that the old Soviet empire produced one economic basket case after another, and one ecological nightmare after another. That’s the lesson of every experiment with socialism: While socialists are fond of explaining that you have to break some eggs to make an omelette, they never make any omelettes. They only break eggs.

If you think you’re so good at taking care of property, go live in someone else’s house, or drive their car, for a month. I guarantee you neither their house nor their car will look the same as yours after the same period of time.

If you want to take the scarce resources of society and trash them, all you have to do is take them away from the people who created or earned them and hand them over to some central authority to manage. In one fell swoop, you can ruin everything. Sadly, governments at all levels are promulgating laws all the time that have the effect of eroding private property rights and socializing property through "salami" tactics — one slice at a time.

2)  It may be true, as British economist John Maynard Keynes once declared, that "in the long run, we’re all dead." But that shouldn’t be a license to enact policies that make a few people feel good now at the cost of hurting many people tomorrow.

I can think of many such policies. When Lyndon Johnson cranked up the Great Society in the 1960s, the thought was that some people would benefit from a welfare check. We now know that over the long haul, the federal entitlement to welfare encouraged idleness, broke up families, produced intergenerational dependency and hopelessness, cost taxpayers a fortune and yielded harmful cultural pathologies that may take generations to undo. Likewise, policies of deficit spending and government growth — while enriching a few at the start — have eaten at the vitals of the nation’s economy and moral fiber for decades.

This principle is actually a call to be thorough in our thinking. It says that we shouldn’t be superficial in our judgments. If a thief goes from bank to bank, stealing all the cash he can get his hands on, and then spends it all at the local shopping mall, you wouldn’t be thorough in your thinking if all you did was survey the store owners to conclude that this guy stimulated the economy.

We should remember that today is the tomorrow that yesterday’s poor policymakers told us we could ignore. If we want to be responsible adults, we can’t behave like infants whose concern is overwhelmingly focused on self and on the here-and-now.

A Trifecta: Crystal Ball, Déjà vu, and GBL all in one swell foop

Yesterday, your loyal correspondent watched the video of Tuesday night’s special town council meeting, called to discuss selling the McLellan building back to Bowdoin College.  The proposal would raise about $2 million in instant one time cash for the School Department, which is aggressively seeking a bailout to cope with fiscal ‘surprises.’

You can watch the 40 minute video here.  We did not attend the meeting in person because of illness.  It seems you did the same.

Before giving you our report, you might reread these posts to set the stage:

  1. Why be petty at times like this? and
  2. So what’s the betting line in Perfect, LT Ben?

After you do, let us remind you of this principle, which we have posted many times in the past, and if tradition holds, will find ample reason to post many times in the future:

“Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own.”

(Posted below is a footnote that expands on this point. Special thanks to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.)

Let’s get to our report;  here are what we consider the meeting takeaways:

1) The blitzkrieg troops amounted to a platoon or so of armored school supporters. Armored means fully shielded from any challenge or opposition by the purity of their intentions and sincerity. 

Air cover will be provided by The Ostrich and various new media outlets set up to ensure the schoolies can conduct their movements with zero losses.

2) The chase: the council voted 6-3 not to accept the Bowdoin College offer to take the McLellan building off the town’s hands for a figure reputed to be $2 million.  But only after discussion so sincere and passionate as to moisten one’s eyes.

3) A modest amount of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing over the increased estimates for the new Police Station was in evidence.

4) The old Times Record building was mentioned, reminding us of the town’s distinguished record in planning, acquiring, and utilizing various facilities.  You could say this acquisition demonstrated the town’s expertise at due negligence, the polar opposite of due diligence. 

The town bought the facility for what seemed to be a very attractive price (less than $1.5 million), only to be shocked, shocked that it would take something like $5 million or more to turn it into a useful property.  Apparently there was no way of knowing this before closing the deal.  (It’s because of the Pelosi principle; you have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it;  perhaps the most egregious and bizarre example of government ineptitude ever heard.)

5) Which brings us to the McLellan building.  Acquired in a swap with Bowdoin College for the Longfellow School, it was portrayed as a deal too good to be true, always a good sign.  If we heard the discussion  correctly, the initial position was that the building was ready to be occupied by the town with no further investment required. 

That very quickly became $100 thousand in work to adapt it, which was then increased to $200 thousand by the Town Manager, ‘just to be safe.’  In a matter of months, based on conversations with two possible contractors, this number has been raised to $800 thousand, though no plans have been drawn or approved.  You’ve heard of slippery slopes; this is what you call a ramp.  (Now would be a good time to ask yourself if you can ever remember such an estimate being too high.)

Mention was made at the meeting of renovations vs. ‘complete gut and rebuild,’ indicating that discussion already encompasses the worst case.  We recall frequent official reminders that renovating and/or ‘repurposing’ an existing building usually costs more than tearing it down and building a new one.  Looks like you have to acquire a building to find out what it needs inside.

So it may well be that in the fullness of time, our prediction that
$2-3 million in modifications will be needed to ‘bring the building into compliance with town needs’ will turn out to be true, if not low.  The estimates are increasing by more than $100,000 per month, and municipal offices are not supposed to take occupancy until 2014.  You can do the math.

6) Finally, and most important, virtually every member of the Town Council emphatically, and for the public record, pandered to the schoolies and their angst over the purported school budget crisis.  We called this ‘GBL’ in the title, standing for gratuitous boot licking.  They committed to dealing with the artfully fabricated school budget crisis as their number one priority.

Not one mention of ‘spending’ was made as all present swore their support for school financing. Only revenue problems and the ‘bump in the road’ of base closure were mentioned. Ignoring irrational increases in per student spending and sizable operating surpluses amounts to deliberate negligence.

Fine; let’s examine the town council’s powers in such matters.  They have no authority to meddle in the details of the school budget.  The only option they have is to accept or reject the school budget bottom line that goes before the voters in June.  In the past, they have demonstrated their authority by asking that a $30 million budget be reduced by token amounts, usually well less than $100,000.

The only other relevant authority they have is to set the property tax rate for the coming year.  So we ask you – when they swear their commitment to come to the rescue of the School Department, what do you think they mean?

Unless you know something we don’t, it can only mean one thing.  If you can’t figure out what it is, you need to speak to LT Dan.

If we were ‘King for a Day,’ here’s one way we would handle the so-called crisis.  We’d direct the town councilors to take out their checkbooks, in public, and write a check to the School Department to demonstrate their leadership when they speak as they did on Tuesday; minimum amount $1,000. 

Then they’d put up a collection jar for the adoring public to make their donations.  They would set a new rule: speaking in favor of spending increases and higher taxes is $250 per minute, or $1,000 for five minutes.  It’s the ‘put your money where your mouth is’ approach to school financing.  A nice added touch would be having an adorable child staffing a ‘save our schools’ kettle, and ringing a bell at appropriate moments.  Out in the hallway, others could be selling Kool-Aid packets.

From time to time we’ve mentioned the choice faced by elected officials: you can govern, or you can spend.

Tuesday night, the town council made it clear what side of that choice they come down on.  To a person, they in effect said on the public record to the school establishment: ‘just tell us how much you need, and we’ll make it happen; you have our word.’  Face it; they have no other way of manifesting their devotion.

The bottom line takeaway: the Council will bow down to the School Department and raise taxes to what ever level they require to stop the sobbing.

Which means doing the best they can to make our ‘betting line’ come to pass, if not worse.  You can take that from the bank.

Put that in your crystal ball and smoke it.

Footnotes:

1.  Expansion on spending somebody else’s money:

Ever wonder about those stories of $600 hammers and $800 toilet seats that the government sometimes buys? You could walk the length and breadth of this land and not find a soul who would say he’d gladly spend his own money that way. And yet this waste often occurs in government and occasionally in other walks of life, too. Why? Because invariably, the spender is spending somebody else’s money.

Economist Milton Friedman elaborated on this some time ago when he pointed out that there are only four ways to spend money. When you spend your own money on yourself, you make occasional mistakes, but they’re few and far between. The connection between the one who is earning the money, the one who is spending it and the one who is reaping the final benefit is pretty strong, direct and immediate.

When you use your money to buy someone else a gift, you have some incentive to get your money’s worth, but you might not end up getting something the intended recipient really needs or values.

When you use somebody else’s money to buy something for yourself, such as lunch on an expense account, you have some incentive to get the right thing but little reason to economize.

Finally, when you spend other people’s money to buy something for someone else, the connection between the earner, the spender and the recipient is the most remote — and the potential for mischief and waste is the greatest. Think about it — somebody spending somebody else’s money on yet somebody else. That’s what government does all the time.

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Attention on deck! Sound the Blitzkrieg warning!

We had two memorable experiences this recent Friday morning.

First, Side put himself in the hands of his urologist for a cystoscopy at PAMC.  (We know, TMI; but it’s necessary to make a persuasive point.)

Second, immediately after, we stopped at Frosty’s, and over a still warm Chubby Checker (twist) and coffee, read this item:

http://www.theforecaster.net/news/print/2012/03/19/forecaster-forum-renew-brunswicks-tradition-valuin/117290

Here’s your challenge: guess which was more unpleasant.

If you picked the urological procedure, Bzzzzzzzz! The studio audience says WRONG!  But they want you to have a free second guess.

Ding-Ding-Ding!  Correct-a-mundo!  “Brunswick’s tradition of valuing education” is the winner.

So let’s begin, even though we don’t know where to begin.  Not that it’s stopped us from rambling on before.

From time to time we hear economics referred to as ‘the dismal science,’ though the origins of that interpretation are a tad confusing.  We submit, however, that this commentary argues eloquently for the dismal label.

Now, consider the opening statement.

In light of the recently announced $1.2 million reduction in state aid for Brunswick’s schools, how much are we willing to pay for high-quality public schools?

It embodies, ever so perfectly, two of the sacred mantras of big public education:

  • it’s never, ever about spending; it’s always about revenue;
  • paying more is a necessary and sufficient condition for ‘quality education.’

Add to that this later statement, whose premise is unsubstantiated in the typical fashion of the spend more, spend more contingent:

As the state withdraws its support, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to send a clear message renewing our commitment to providing among the best schools in the state.

Other comments in the column echo what has become standard fare from the “don’t worry, be happy” governing class in Brunswick.  ‘Strong business growth’ at the former Naval Air Station, though any such growth, if it exists, comes via taxpayer wallets. 

‘Attracting new residents’ and ‘more economic activity;’ this from authors who cite a variety of census data and other sources.  Would you like a refill on your cup of guilt, sir?

Somehow our authors missed the memo showing Maine is in a demographic winter, and shipping its young human capital out of state.  They must have been out to lunch when it arrived.

While we’d like to explore how they know that Brunswick schools are excellent, other than that they attended them, we won’t.  And we’ll similarly not explore why, for example, not giving teachers generous automatic annual compensation increases will make our schools non-excellent.

Cutting to the bottom line, the overarching premise of the column, cunningly unstated, is that dollars spent equates directly to quality of education.  The more you spend, the more you learn.

Now that we know dollars are the measure of quality in education, we offer our condolences to those of you with degrees or credentials from the UMaine System or our Community Colleges.  It must be nearly impossible to get by with a substandard education compared to one from Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, or FITBU.  (Fill In The Blank U.)

We’re painfully aware of what a handicap this can be. This reporter is a graduate of a state college, and has suffered lack of self-esteem for decades, not to mention no respect from the local aristocracy.  It’s probably why we’re so irascible. 

We had hoped advanced degrees from a well known private university would help, but we still drive a pick-up truck.  So in the arena of things that really matter, we’re still just a member of the bourgeoisie.

Making things worse, we handicapped our daughter by sending her off to a state university.  But we love her just the same, in spite of her shortcomings.

Oh; in keeping with our tradition, one more point.  The column we’re discussing refers to multi-generational experiences.

You want multi-generational memories?  We think we span all three covered in this opinion piece.  We remember when we had to learn in school, and if we didn’t, we were held back, and even worse, wouldn’t graduate.  And if we misbehaved, we paid the price, including answering to our parents.

Oh, we learned.  Because there were expectations, and teaching of the basics before all the other fluff and distractions instituted by modern day experts.  Somehow, these experts decided that learning the basics simply wasn’t good enough, so they invented value neutral education, open classrooms ‘pods,’ self-esteem promotions, and seat-time graduation.

Fat lot of good that’s all done.  Apparently, all it will take is spending a good deal more to reverse all this progress.  And so we have suggestions of cashing in municipal facilities.

The obvious question is what will we sell off next year when enrollment is even lower and the budget even higher?  And the year after that, and after that?

“Brunswick: a town gone mad.”  A well known town personality, now deceased, uttered that to us a few years back.  If he could only see us now.

OMFG. Can you feel the guilt weighing heavy on your shoulders and your heart?

We sure can.

Footnotes:

blitzkrieg refers to the “tactic of rapidly advancing armored forces and massive air support.”