Dear Blog-mates:  As you can tell by my screen name, I am running for the Springfield School Board.  I've enjoyed these forums, and until now I've tried really hard to post "down-the-middle" items that may pique interest and not bore everyone with election-related issues.  I promise that this will be my only post that may go down that road -- but I would like feedback on the following item.

In the course of this election, I requested budget documents from the Springfield School Board -- including the expense reports of the current Board Members -- because on the face of it, it looked like a lot of money was being spent on things either marginally related to education or not related at all.  I found several things -- like payments to a Washington DC lobbying firm that rarely does anything for the District [only lobbied for us in 6 out of the last 72 months, but was paid for all 72] and other substantive items -- but one minor item really stuck in my craw. 

The following receipt was submitted by a Board Member after a trip to Portland.  In addition to the 18% tip ($22), the Member added on $30 "for cheese steward".  This resulted in a total 42% tip for the meal (or $52).  When a news reporter asked the Board Member about the extra $30, he told her it was a FEE.  Shocked, I personally called the restaurant myself, and the maitre'd assured me that they would never or had never charged a customer a Cheese Steward Fee.  I am not disputing the meal -- on per diem it's perfectly acceptable to be able to eat dinner -- I'm disputing the cavalier tipping!

 

 

 

 

I guess some computers won't show the image, and if yours can't you can see it at my website ( www.trishabarnes.clearwire.net) under the "42%" tab on the left side.  (If anyone has a suggestion on how to get this to show to everyone please let me know how...)

[Scan of actual receipt copy received from a Public Records Request to Superintendent Golden at the Springfield School District about three weeks ago.  This was attached to an expense report submitted by a Board Member for the Board trip to the Oregon School Board Association's Conference last November.]

My questions to you are: Do you think that this really isn't a big deal (and that maybe I just think it is because I'm running against this person)?  Or do you think that it's indicative of an out-of-touch official, when coupled with the other spending problems?  Do you mind that our tax dollars are spent that way?  Have you ever tipped a cheese steward $30 with your own money or with someone else's [taxpayer's] money? 

Thank you!

 

[Shameless plug:  See more at my campaign website at www.trishabarnes.clearwire.net .]

Budget oversight update:  While I didn't win the electon, I appreciated all of the support from everyone on this blog.  It was close.  Thanks.

Continuing student advocacy efforts include more records requests, a flag drive to provide an extra flag at each of the 25 District schools, and attendance at all Springfield School Board meetings.  We'll update our efforts here.

---

Trisha Barnes
www.friendsofspringfieldschoolchildren.com

Trisha, while you're at it, could you look into why we're spending tens of millions on forcing special educations kids into classrooms with other kids and NOTHING on the brightest kids?

I can't imagine a more absurd strategy. Other countries invest in their best and brightest. Their most competitive athletes and students are given everything they need to maximize their chances to compete, as they're seen as the salvation of their society. Here we think nothing of providing a full-time private teacher for a retarded kid who could be more effectively and more compassionately educated in a "Perl Buck-type" environment - at less than one-tenth the cost of forcing them through a "normal classroom experience' at the expense of all of the other kids trying to get an education. Meanwhile, our brightest 30%, the kids who have the greatest chance of defining their generation and paying the next pile of tax money, is starved. We got NOTHING for them. No support. No classes that challenge them. Bupkiss.

No wonder we spend more than any other nation on education but rank fifteenth or eighteenth in  math and science competence. That's appalling!! We need to spend less on social engineering and more on education that matters.

We're not going to survive as a country/economy/world power if we keep doing everything we can to forfeit our competitive advantage.

So, basically, we should invest our money on student athletes that can't even read at an eighth grade level upon reaching "college" (if you want to call what some of these kids go to that) because it is more important to go to a bowl game than produce Rhode Scholars or that football is more important than a kid with ADHD? You know, the people in this country profess to believe in equal rights and opportunities for all, but when people such as you believe that "special ed" kids are a waste of money, then that is a problem. So, what is your solution for dealing with "retarded" kids? Place them in cages for the world to see? Maybe we should just throw them and everyone else that doesn't fit onto an island, so that somebody's kid, who supposedly is academically superior, can have more money spent on them? Why does a kid who is "super bright" need any additional help? Being bright doesn't necessarily equate to  motivation (which seems to be lacking nowadays) or parent involvement in challenging their own kids (also lacking). Maybe you should spend less time assuming money is "wasted" on these children and get some real facts. I know I have.

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home

Dear Deke, What?!

There was nothing in her post about student athletes who can't read. What the heck are you talking about? The U of O? Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of higher education money IS spent on education, not sports. The same is true of buildings on the U of O campus. notwithstanding the extraordinary generosity of Phil Knight, 75% of the money spent on facilities on the U of O campus over the last twenty years has been spent on academic facilities, not athletics. It arguably should be more like 98%, but that will be closer to the net balance when the income from sports is factored in. That, however, is a topic for another day. Hope was talking about supporting TAG programs, like they do in most of the rest of the country and are required to do under Oregon law.

Deke, lots of folks can imagine a caring, compassionate, balanced alternative to "putting them in cages for people to see". Hope mentioned one of them. Why not support kids in learning what they're capable of learning? Why not help retarded kids learn essential life skills? Why not do something for ALL kids, instead of spending $80,000 or $100,000 per year on one retarded child while spending NOTHING on a handful of children who have special abilities? Don't we have an obligation to do something for every child? Isn't it unfair that the schools can ignore the Oregon Administrative Rules when it comes to challenging the brightest kids, but ANY failure to provide EVERY service to a retarded kid results in a lawsuit?

I know it's contrary to the "we're all equally capable" view in the hallowed halls of Eugene social engineering, but we are NOT all created equal. Some kids are faster runners than others. Some are more coordinated. And some are brighter than others. Some kids are NOT brighter too. I'm not in favor of labeling or limiting kids. I want each to have his/her best shot, but it's okay to have a little balance and commonsense too.

I don't think society is served by an education system than completely abandons kids of average or greater intelligence while devoting GOBS and GOBS of money to individual retarded kids. (Zeke, we can abandon the "supposedly" here. Brain function is like any other physical characteristic: the performance across a population distributes along a bell curve -- just like every other performance/measurement we can take. There's a reason some kids start to read at two, and it's not just because the parents are rich/concerned/whatever. Not all kids can do that, regardless of what the parents do or don't do. Some kids are just, gasp, different -- in every way.

For reasons I'll never understand, we're not permitted to recognize that reality in Eugene. No amount of training was going to make me sing like Tony Bennett, and no amount of help would have turned me into an Einstein. It would have been a irresponsible waste of time and money to try to force me into one of those molds. Thank goodness they weren't that stupid in the 1950s and 1960s US education system.)

Twenty years downstream, we'll see that we wasted great gifts and opportunities by abandoning our average and bright students. I suspect that we'll also see that we did not serve the retarded kids well, as they might have been able to learn more and progress further in an environment that was designed and paced to suit their needs.

In the meantime we can all stand by and watch the retarded kids get forced into unkind, awkward, painful situations of little to no educational value. (Like forcing a 16 year old who can't read to bang the drums, out of sync, during a school band performance.) And we can assume the other 31 kids in the class will continue to be disrupted when the autistic, non-communicative child is screaming and banging his head during class and has to be restrained. And we can wonder why it's okay to spend $100,000 on one child, for any reason, when the same money might be applied to multiply the benefits for twenty or thirty other children who are receiving no special support from the school system.

No, Zeke, you don't get to paint everybody who favors a different balance as some heartless Nazi ***. In this instance, like so many others, I think we do more harm than good with our awkward social engineering efforts. I'm grateful my kids are past the point of being injured by our poor public education system.

By the way, why does Oregon compare so poorly with the poor New England states like Vermont? Why don't we compare more favorably with third world countries in math, science, geography and languages? Why doesn't spending all this money produce better results?

Halo I don’t know how to thank you for steering me to yet another Oregon Community Foundation scheme.

 

“No, Zeke, you don't get to paint everybody who favors a different balance as some heartless Nazi ***. In this instance, like so many others, I think we do more harm than good with our awkward social engineering efforts.”

 

The awkward social engineering you refer to is exactly what the community foundations are set up to impose. Re-read posts on Charles Steward Mott Foundation and U of O presidents “Blue print for Oregon”

 

 

Now to the connection between the OCF and U of O, I’ll post the web sites later, but I’m sure you can find them in a few minutes. You know that the president of the University of Oregon is the son of one of the founders of the Oregon Community Foundation.. The OCF has it’s funds managed by

Current OCF Managers

Columbia Management

Iridian Asset Management

Pinnacle Associates

 

Grantham, Mayo, & Van Oterloo

 

City of London

 

Wells Capital Management

 

Common Sense Investments

Harris Associates

Pacific Corporate Group

 

Wellington Asset Management

 

Vanguard Energy Fund

 

Investment Committee Members

Robert F. Wulf – Chair, Salem

George Bell — Lake Oswego

William Berg – Portland

Lyn Hennion – Medford

William Moffat – Wilsonville

Ron Parker – Portland

Richard G. Reiten – Portland

Benjamin R. Whiteley – Portland

Loren Wyss – Portland

 

The University of Oregon Foundation has their funds managed by the Willamette Investment Pool.

4. INVESTMENTS

The investments are organized and managed in

the following four ways:

GENERAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM

The General Investment Program includes assets

managed for the short to medium term, endowment

gifts prior to their placement in an investment pool

or specific investments, and endowment

distributions prior to disbursement.

 

These funds are invested in a portfolio managed by Wells Capital

Management, a division of Wells Fargo Bank;

 

in money market accounts managed by the

Commonfund, Short-Term Fund; and in an

interest-bearing sweep account managed by Pacific

Domestic equity securities managed by Tukman

Capital Management; Snyder Capital Management;

Eagle Capital Management; Gardner Russo and

Gardner Investments; Kestrel Investment Management;

 

Wellington Management Company;

 

and prior to June 2004, Rainier Investment Management; Dresdner

RCM Global Investment; and, prior to June 2003,

Commonfund Small Cap Growth Fund.

International equities managed by Fisher

Investments;

 

 Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo;

 

Oaktree Capital Management; Northern Cross

Investments Limited, the Harbor Fund International

subadvisor; and, prior to May 2003, Lazard

Asset Management.

Yes, way too much!!  As an Oregon taxpayer it's horrible to think our elected officials are taking advantage of we taxpayers on any level.  They work for us -- thank you very much.  I believe our tax dollars can be better spent in other areas; such as education, arts, etc.  Not  lining a cheese steward pocket.  I believe in instances such as this, this 'charge' should be denied.  A reasonable tip is ok and should be allowed.  This, however, stretches the limit.  We taxpayers are footing the bill for too much frivilious spending by politicians as it is.  I think it is time to tighten the reins. 

I was appalled when I read this too, so I looked for the rules and enforcement provisions. The two government rule-sets I found easily were those for state and county employees. Neither will compensate tipping over 15%, and both require proof (receipts) and audits. Whew!

As far as I'm concerned, politicians or other government employees can tip as much as they want, as long as we (taxpayers) don't have to pay for it. Thank goodness that's the rule. Apparently Ms. Barnes was trying to capitalize on our general contempt/distrust of government to score a few political points.

Spanky:

I was ....

 "to capitalize on our general contempt/distrust of government to score a few political points."

That's the sad and telling part of the whole issue.  Everyone want's to b****h and whine about "the government", but you don't have any qualms about sucking the public teat and taking advantage of all the wonderful advantages that you have around you due to "the government".   Do something constructive for a change instead of complaining and pointing fingers all the time.  Your politicians are what you have MADE them become because of the constant self-centered whining, and political deal-making that you force them to with your self-centered howling about pet projects. 

What a bunch of whiney slackers...  

coolbreeze:

Spanky:

I was ....

 "to capitalize on our general contempt/distrust of government to score a few political points."

That's the sad and telling part of the whole issue.  Everyone want's to b****h and whine about "the government", but you don't have any qualms about sucking the public teat and taking advantage of all the wonderful advantages that you have around you due to "the government".   Do something constructive for a change instead of complaining and pointing fingers all the time.  Your politicians are what you have MADE them become because of the constant self-centered whining, and political deal-making that you force them to with your self-centered howling about pet projects. 

What a bunch of whiney slackers...  

Amen.

Democracy only works well when citizens are informed and involved. We're in trouble - here and around the country.

I recently read that 50% of our recent high school graduates could not name the countries immediately to the north and south of the continental United States... but they STILL get to vote.

They may not know anything about economics, world politics, local politics, law or, most importantly, history, but they know what they WANT.

Many don't vote at all. Maybe that's best if they have no idea what's going on or what concerns are involved. Others just vote for the politicians who promise more freebies. How can that produce good direction and economic and social health?

Then there's the super-organized mini-minority who are super-effective at advancing their special agenda -- like the extension service proponents or the folks who think animal control is more important than cops, critical care nurses or mental health workers.

Here, when the discussion turned to which county service would be cut next, the commissioners announced that 119 jail beds would be closed and there would be reductions at Lane County animal control. The county commissioners got over a dozen calls about the dog and cat hotel, and NOT A SINGLE CALL from a concerned citizen worried about more criminals being released from the little jail. So that's what happened... The jail beds were closed -- and they're STIL closed. The commissioners, specifically Fleenor and Sorenson, are talking about doing the same thing AGAIN. No prioritization for public safety... They plan to keep the doggy hotel open, maintain parks and extension service, keep political television for themselves, and keep the county supplement for the federal veterans program, while cutting more cops, DAs, and jail-beds.

Do you think most citizens are more concerned about dog catcher or public safety? You watch...Fleenor and Sorenson will vote for the dogs over the people... and there will be NO political consequence for it!

The citizens just don't care.