Provo City Board of Education Meeting

As a new resident of Provo, I was slightly happy to see "A Public Budge Meeting Will Be Held August 12th at 7 PM" on my property tax notification: here was an opportunity to limit the amount of injustice in my annual mugging. I was particularly inspired to go because the school district portion of the taxes went up by 23%.

Libby and I got there as the meeting was getting together and were greeted by Carolyn Wright, one of the members of the board. The president, Darryl Alder, talked about "Americans doing the impossible" (using the movie Pearl Harbor, particularly the end, as his notes), then gave an opening prayer and let Mary Ann Christiansen (board member) lead the group in the pledge of allegiance. (Aside: I consider the pledge a bit idolatrous and an assault on liberty.)

The next thirty minutes were spent hearing presentations from the Provo High School Spanish class and Provo High School band about trips they had made. The groups were thanking the school board for approving their trips and presenting results. Lib and I were a bit surprised at this part, because the gist of each story was that the group raised their own money to go on the trip. Why did they need to be organized or approved by the school? Can't a group of people decide to go to Mexico, etc. On the less cynical side, the trips looked like great experiences for the youth who went.

After that, Kerry Smith (business administrator for the Provo government education system) gave a presentation about the budget and why the taxes were being increased. The moral was: three years "the public" voted on two plans that require raising taxes today. The first, a bond initiative to raise money repair buildings after years of dilapidation, required paying off the principal and interest on the loans for the long term. The second, a "leeway" program to increase teacher compensation and make the government schools "more competitive" with other government schools, was split over three years (and this was the last year.) Later, when these parts of the budgets were discussed, the board members kept talking about how they "could have ask [i.e., taken forcefully] more in past years, but did not", so we should be happy about their restraint. This reminds me of a robber stealing the most valuable thing in my house and telling me, "Hey, I could have taken everything. But I didn't, so cut some slack." Nevertheless, I appreciate the restraint. My goal was to ensure that there was a lot of friction when trying to increase the taxes. This way it is harder to spend frivolously in the long run, even if this particular increase is "reasonable."

The main negotiable (i.e., not the result of past voter initiatives) part of the budget was to start a fund for building maintenance. The bond program was to jump start some major repairs, because no money had been set away. This board decided to take money every year, starting this year, to (a) monitor and improve government buildings and (b) save to build new government buildings. The intent of this fund is to ensure that bonds (which are expense) will not be "needed" in the future. Apparently, the ceiling of a kindergarden room caved in one night. (When have you ever worried about the ceiling of McDonalds or a movie theater caving in?) This, by the way, led to quite a few "But think of the children!"

During the public input phase of the meeting, some people had inappropriate comments that should have been directed to the county assessors---the group that valued their home more and thereby increased the taxes. But some people zeroed in on the actual expenses at hand. I recall some people talking about how it seems inconsistent to talk about restraint and a gradual process when the repair program is starting up at the "dream" level, rather than graduating those taxes increases. For example, there is 2.5 million budget increase this year that will continue in perpetuity, rather than (for example) a 1 million increase, followed by a 1.5 or 2, followed by a 2.5, thereby spreading the budget increase over a few years. A few other people talked about the need to cut the budget and make due in times of "recession", etc. Two people complained about high fees for their kids.

In my comments, I underscored this last critique by pointing out the admonition of "Good, Better, and Best" as principal of cutting budgets. I mentioned that those who are opposed to taxes should be in favour of fees, because they put the cost of activities on the people who do them and I expressed my support. (Interestingly, the board members nodded thoughtfully at this, but earlier had commiserated with the fee-complainers.) Finally, I had a number of questions about how they were evaluating the effectiveness of their compensation program.

During the break, a board staff member came over to criticize me about my requests for merit pay and other teacher evaluations. He asked how I would like that at BYU, or rather, how they do it there. When I explained the tenure process, he said that it was fictitious and just a rubber-stamp. Perhaps, but he is misguided. First, BYU is not robbing thousands to pay its teachers. (Despite what you may think about tithing.) Second, I don't have voice at BYU, like I should at this meeting for government schools, so attacking me is attacking the wrong person.

The meeting went on for about two hours before they held their vote. (Only the board voted, not the citizens.) Everyone on the board---Shannon Poulsen, Carolyn Wright, Mary Ann Christiansen, Darryl Alder, Sue Curtis, and Sandy Packard---voted in favour of the tax increase. Sue prefaced her vote with a comment that she recognized "everyone present" disagrees. Sandy Packard prefaced her vote by saying that she thinks the board can cut the budget more and should close a school, but couldn't vote "No" without hurting the children. (I was particularly surprised at this, because she was the last to vote and therefore could have voted No, but had the motion passed, and thereby had a bit of political armour.)

So, there you are. We did our best to slow down the tax increase and were unsuccessful. But was there enough pain and annoyance at the meeting to reconsider future increases? Who knows.