Miscellaneous Answers and Ideas

Someone asked a question about OASD's use of UWO facilities. This is an issue that has been argued before. The answers have yet to change so I will post this link to the discussion from August 2006. Like I said, nothing seems to have changed except the price may have increased like the price of everything else.

Jonathen Krause from WOSH posted a list of ideas, some I think are great. Some of them were great when I proposed them last year. Not to take the wind out of Mr. Krauses sails, I am simply thinking that I was ahead of my time a tad and now is the right time for my ideas too. Sincerely, thanks for pointing out something we should all think about, Mr. Krause.

Here was my take on zero-based budgeting from Feb 2007.

"Anyway, as for the budget. Considering the current state of affairs, I think it is time to evaluate what we have and what we spend. I would recommend zero-based budgeting for the next two to three years to see how much we really need and spend. Every expense would be justified and every dollar accounted for. This is not micromanaging, it sets a base line for the next step. I have spoken to Mr. McDermott and Dr. Heilmann about this and it seems entirely possible with one modification. According to Dr. Heilmann, we cannot go to zero, however, we know what is required by the state and that amount would be the baseline.

The second step is in consideration of the various initiatives we have started and programs we are looking toward. After establishing a spending trend with a zero-based budget, we need to look at a combined Performance/Program-based budget. Before assigning a dollar amount, we decide our goals for the district and how the goals will be measured. We budget based on those goals. It's kind of a needs versus wants type of budget. We budget for our needs and where we meet our goals we can reward for the wants.

This form of budgeting also rids us of the infamous line-item budget we currently use and makes micromanaging far more difficult while retaining the ability to see where money is being leached away."

Maybe now that Mr. Krause pointed out that we should be looking at what we need in the way of buildings, someone on Eagle Street will listen. So far they haven't when any of the rest of us pushed for something as common sense as priorities in whatever form the idea took.

From Mr. Krause: "Step one: determine the minimum number of buildings you will need to house all students--add one--and close all of the others." I'd do the details a little differently, but same effect. Bravo, Mr. Krause.

While I agree with Mr. Krause's rationale about SAGE, I think there is a use for keeping the five contracts. What I do agree with is that we do not need to expand it, particularly in the manner proposed. I wholeheartedly disagree with taking SAGE away from Roosevelt as that population has flourished with SAGE and could suffer without it. If it is possible to maintain SAGE as it is now and not have to worry if the extra funding will really cover all expenses, why take the chance on losing the whole program when we find we do not have enough money after expanding it. More simply, if it doesn't hurt to keep it, keep it. If it hurts to expand it, don't expand it. Just my opinion.