Tally of contributors to anti-millage campaigns: 1
 Yep, you read that right. The campaign finance statements were due last Friday, and it looks like the anti-millage campaigns have come up with no more than a single source of funding: McKinley Associates, Inc.Part of what makes this so significant is that McKinley Associates has a substantial financial interest in defeating any millage (not just a school millage), as it holds substantial amounts of rental properties and real estate. There were two contributions from McKinley, one for $50,000 and a second for $25,000. You can view the financial statements here and here. McKinley has much to gain by stopping a millage. By stopping the millage, McKinley's taxes will be less than if the millage passes. Moreover, $75,000 is pocket change to McKinley, representing less than .003 of its annual revenue of $237.2 Million, on a real estate portfolio worth $2.4 Billion. If your household were to generate a grand total of $50,000 this year, donating a comparable amount would be $150, less than an average car payment. Not exactly a bank-breaker. Clearly, McKinley considers its interest in its own bottom line to be more important and worthy than the interests of families with schoolchildren. In trying to save on its property taxes, it harms the very communities in which it owns property. Worse yet, these campaign contributions come from revenue generated at least in part by the rent charged by McKinley. I hardly think that is what its renters had in mind when they handed over their rent payments. This, in my view, is greed at its worst. A second group opposing the millage received no contributions and spent no money. The third group didn't bother to file any statements. Conversely, the two pro-millage groups generated just over $43,000 from well over 350 contributions, the vast majority of them from individuals living in this area. Most of the contributions were in the $20 - $300 range. You can view their statements here and here. You will find my contribution among the pro-millage supporters. It is truly wonderful to see so many grass roots, individual contributions from people who know what this millage means to our communities and to our schools. With a state legislature in gridlock and greed controlling the agenda at the state level, this may be the last chance in a long time to give a much needed boost to our schools. Get out and vote in favor of the millage on November 3, 2009! |
posted by trusty getto at 9:57 PM
Comments on "Tally of contributors to anti-millage campaigns: 1"
-
Anonymous said ... (8:39 AM) :
-
jules said ... (9:42 AM) :
-
designated conservative said ... (9:48 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (9:54 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (10:01 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (10:02 AM) :
-
trusty getto said ... (10:50 AM) :
-
designated conservative said ... (11:27 AM) :
-
designated conservative said ... (12:02 PM) :
-
designated conservative said ... (12:03 PM) :
-
trusty getto said ... (12:40 PM) :
post a commentStunning, isn't it? My jaw dropped when I read about it this weekend.
And the NO side has the audacity to complain that teachers are backing the YES side. Even if the total dollar amount the YES side collected had come from teacher unions (which it hasn't), it doesn't even come close.
I am proud to be associated with the volunteers of this YES campaign. I believe they want what is best for all our kids.
I am sick and tired of the mean-spiritedness of the opposition. I am immensely concerned that, at its root, this is just another step toward a caste system. I do not mean that as hyperbole, either.
- Amy
Most excellent post, Cam. I stuck it up on Facebook. And Amy, very well said. Thank you for your tireless work on behalf of the schools. Big hug.
Trusty,
You neglected to mention that the largest contributors by far to the pro-WISD millage side are all closely associated with the teachers union or the local school boards - in other words the main beneficiaries of the tax.
This millage only went on the ballot in August. The pro- side had months to prepare, and the union has very deep pockets to pour money into this. Did you ever consider that the campaign finance paperwork was due before many on the anti-tax side had even become aware of the organizations, much less had time to contribute.
For me, I'm grateful for the generosity of a businessman who's willing to provide the seed money that has allowed an anti-tax message to get out at all.
Amy,
Having a difference of opinion on a public policy issue is not "mean-spiritedness" and campaigning against a school tax does not mean we don't "want the best for all our kids." There are multiple ways and means by which children are educated - perhaps it's long past time for the teachers union to come into the 21st century and join the rest of us.
I have been deeply impressed at the respectful tone overall in the online (and face-to-face) debate about this issue. I've learned a great deal from those that that disagree with my opinions and have told me why they do so. The only mean-spiritedness I've witnessed has come from those that prefer proverbial tar and feathers to honest discussion and debate.
DC,
I know we read the same blogs, because you frequently post on them. The examples of mean-spiritedness among the commenters are too numerous to count.
I will not budge on my position.
By the way, support of the millage does not equate with opposition to fiscal responsibility.
- Amy
DC,
And for those who've commented elsewhere that, essentially, the poor kids don't deserve such "extras" as electives, sports, extracurriculars--heck, even different levels of academic courses!--well... Please explain how those people "want the best for all our kids."
They don't.
We are looking at the impending disintegration of our public school system. Parents who are able to afford and/or access better choices for their children will do what it takes to get them. Those who can't will be stuck.
Sorry, 10:01 a.m. post was mine.
- Amy
DC: If people want what is best for their kids, then they need to stop linking the concept of an ehancement millage with irresponsible spending. The two are completely separate. If the notion is to stop irresponsible spending, then where the heck were these people when it came time to enact budgets for their local school districts? These schools are ours, all the time. Not just when there is an impending millage vote.
As one who formerly was responsible for managing a $50+ Million district budget and as someone who was instrumental in elminating millions from our budget on a structural basis, I know for a fact that there is little to no waste in our district's budget. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless and ought to bone up on this stuff before pretending to know anything about it.
If you recall, I personally designed and proposed a district-wide committee made up of parents, teachers, taxpayers and other community members when I was on our school board. I went out of my way to ensure that the committee was NOT handpicked by the school board. For months that committee labored and came up with ways to reduce waste, improve efficiency and save money.
And to the union-bashers, our union employees are some of the lowest paid in the entire county. There is no objective data supporting any opinion that we overpay our teachers. On my watch, we saved over $100,000 on administration personnel changes.
I'll say it again: anyone who thinks our district spends money irresponsibly has no clue what they are talking about. We were approaching the edge of fiscal disaster before the economic downturn, and unless county taxpayers authorize this bridge to the future, our schools are at serious risk of failing. If that's what you are seeking, DC, keep advocating against supporting our schools, 'cause that's the direction our "leaders" in Lansing are moving.
Amy - "By the way, support of the millage does not equate with opposition to fiscal responsibility."
I agree :)
Trusty,
The Ypsi schools appear to be better managed fiscally-speaking than some others in Washtenaw County - I will agree with that. However, that is a relative statement, and even Ypsi has made poor financial decisions recently. The decision to give the new superintendent a gold-plated salary and benefits package is one. I have no objection to paying him top dollar based on performance, but that's not how his contract was set up.
More importantly, the WISD millage is not an Ypsi-only millage. We must consider all 10 districts - and some of those have made far worse decisions than overpaying a superintendent.
As I said, though, all of this is relative. If we compare the "business operations" of the 10 districts to business operations in the private sector, all of the districts would receive a failing grade. I'm not willing to supersize my subsidy of the public schools when they, overall, have not taken all necessary steps to live within their budgets.
For example, I would be far more open to the WISD millage if it came in the wake of a serious and successful effort to consolidate districts, and share or privatize non-academic services.
Come back to me when the schools have done those things and I'll campaign FOR such a millage. I would even be happy to help the WISD and districts make such a consolidation/sharing/privatization effort successful.
Trusty,
I wasn't kidding when I said I would be happy to be a part of a real effort at reforming business operations to help our public school districts be successful. You and May have the contacts at the local and county levels - if you're serious about making something positive and lasting out of this WISD millage fiasco, give me a call and let's make it happen.
(I mean "Amy" not "May" - does old age bring on dyslexia too? :)
DC: I think the trouble is that I disagree substantially with your theory that business operations need reform and that significant benefits would result from such reforms. I am familiar with the budget and funding process. The problem is not on the spending side at the local level. The spending problem revolves around legacy costs imposed by the state as well as federal and state unfunded or underfunded mandates. The rest of the problem results from the inability to control certain legally required costs (liability, workers comp insurance, electricity/energy) and other costs that must be provided to remain competitive (health care coverage, pool, buses). In the budget balancing process, one must be sure that you don't close the pool to save $70,000 and then lose so many kids who go elsewhere for a pool that you end up losing more in revenue than the $70,000 you saved while at the same time not having a pool. It is not an easy problem to solve.
As I've mentioned, we took a long look at our budget back in the 2004-06 time frame and made substantial structural changes. Admin costs were cut, administratores were cut or privatized, we closed buildings, that sort of thing.
Obviously you remain unconvinced. So, to prove to yourself that this is not a spending problem, I suggest you start by talking with school board members and our new superintendent. You can get the budget and go over it line item by line item and get a feel for what is coming in and where it is going. It's a fair amount of work, but the amount of information gleaned from such an exercise is worth it.