opinion




Letters to the Editor 08/26/2010
Published: August 25, 2010
David Lint

In support of local businesses

I have never written a letter mourning the loss of a business; but this is such a letter.  Jodi Duffy did everything a good business person should do.  She produced a great product and tried in every way to make Java Jodi’s a gathering place for the community.  She had free wi-fi, showcased local artists and musicians, had a play area for children, supported craft groups, and provided employment.  Her business entrance was a porch with rockers and chairs encouraging people to sit and chat.  She had a question of the day that not only could get you a discount but also could give us shy people a way to strike up a conversation.  The closing of that business has lost us not just a great cup of joe, but torn a piece from the fabric of our community.

A similar fate is happening to our county library in that its hours are shortened and its doors are now fully closed on Tuesdays.  Our schools and emergency medical services have to compete for funding.  Talk of taxes gets people hissing like rattlesnakes.  And underlying it all is this sense of “Oh well, I’ll head in to Short Pump.”

Let me explain what I mean by that last remark.  At root, we Goochlanders take our money, taxes, and support to Henrico, Richmond and Chesterfield. I am a huge offender in this regard, and I can only imagine that it is absolutely irresistible if you live in the eastern end of the county.

But I firmly believe that Starbucks would not have folded if we had taken some of our business to Java Jodi’s; CVS will not expire if we patronize our local pharmacies; Whole Foods will not close down if we shop at the Goochland Farmers Market. 

When we buy at local businesses, we not only support our neighbors’ businesses, but we also support our local tax base so we can have fully-funded emergency medical services, competitive schools, a fully-functioning library and other quality-of-life operations.  Nobody else is going to come along and magically protect the quality of life that we still enjoy in this county. 

But I believe that if we don’t start making conscious efforts to explore our county and support its businesses and services, Goochland will eventually become just a place where the only choice we will have is to just park our cars and sleep in our beds here.

I don’t think we should ever turn inward entirely.  It’s important to support the Virginia Museum, Ginter, the Richmond Squirrels, and other unique institutions.
But I write this letter of mourning in hopes that each of us will reflect on what we want Goochland County to be and that we (and I, especially) might try harder to assume personal responsibility for making it that way.

Dr. N. C.  Parrish
Columbia

Working together to improve schools

I read with great interest the piece regarding how well the school system performed and the very useful link the article provided to gather more data from these evaluations. 

It appears that the school system did ok in some areas and ‘needs improvement’ in others. I am sure that the School Superintendent and staff as well the School Board (and the BOS) and parents will be analyzing this for ways to improve our children’s education.

I would hope that  at least two things happen: 1, a positive and constructive view is taken by all parties (name calling and pejorative statements are counterproductive) and 2, there is a clear recognition that meeting the state standards are the minimum(the floor) and that we all will work for our education to exceed this minimum standard in a responsible way (don’t break the bank).

Now’s the time to work together and help our children be the best that they can be…

Richard Carchman
Columbia

Reflections on the school board

After attending last week’s school board meeting, it is quite apparent our county government’s frolicking fiscal frivolity is not just limited to the antics and escapades KPMG recently brought to light on the supervisors’ side of Goochland’s governmental house.  The same school board that controls more than half of our county’s tax dollars finally received, not last year’s (FY 2009–2010), but prior year’s (FY 2008-2009), activity fund audit results.  This same board that previously rubber stamped a 43-page technology plan with expenditures increasing 33 percent ($476,193) over 5 years now faces a $19,000 general activity fund deficit, an $18,000 athletic uniform fund deficit and an $8,000 cheerleading fund deficit!  I’m on the edge of my seat waiting for last year’s (FY 2009–2010) audit.  Looks like we might have to cut Hendron’s iPad budget or Gretz’s doctoral studies’ stipends!

 Speaking of waiting, as a now regular school board meeting attendee, where is the  new and improved organization chart showing all lines pointing to King Linda’s throne which was tabled a few meetings ago?  Where is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) presentation, illegibly presented by another of the king’s cronies during last month’s school board workshop meeting?  They should not use the term “tabling.”  Perhaps “carpeting” is a better term considering that’s where these past unaddressed agenda items have gone, “swept under the carpet.”

Only three board members attended the meeting, with the third “quorum maker” arriving late.  Besides school administrators and a media representative, only five citizens attended - a Boy Scout needing a public meeting attendance for a merit badge, his mother, the leader of Goochland’s Republican Committee, myself, and my wife.  Where was GEPA? 

Where was the Goochland Tea Party?  Where were the board’s alleged supporters, the oft referenced, silent (and invisible!) majority?

Vacation mode was not only apparent in the audience, but also on the raised dais where our school board rules their fiefdom.  One board member actually asked if an item on the agenda would require a vote…duh!  This same member also mentioned he could not access his school board e-mail account for two weeks! 

 When leaving the momentous meeting a few months ago where our board voted unanimously to adopt our current bureaucratically top-heavy Goochland County Public Schools budget, a fellow citizen remarked, “You can’t make this stuff up,” referring to our board’s boorish behavior.  Truer words were never spoken, then, and last week.

Michael M. McDermott
Maidens

Fees rather than tax hikes?

I would like to voice my approval of those citizens who, like Jane Christie, take an active role in local issues. 

However her letter questioning school expenses is high on conjecture and low on useful, accurate information.  I happen to know that she filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to obtain the county cell phone details, but if she had sat down and held a considerate and rational discussion with school officials she could have learned much more, and perhaps not found it necessary to use misleading and incomplete information to create a problem where one does not appear to exist. 

The unfortunate loss of civility permeating Goochland in recent times is quite distressing, and Ms. Christie’s misleading and incomplete information contributes to the separation between citizens and their local institutions at a time, when more than ever, we need to pull together as one.   

Let’s start with those pesky fees.  A simple inquiry yielded the following information:  The Adventure Games (an elective with equipment, supplies and entry fee) went up $10. 

Marching Band went up from $55 to $75 to cover the cost of uniforms, maintenance and repair on aging band instruments, etc.  That’s it folks.  No other fees were increased.  Many of the fees are optional.  If you don’t drive to school, you don’t need a parking pass. Yearbooks and chorus shirts are optional.   (Note that if a family qualifies for free or reduced breakfast and/or lunch in line with federal guidelines, the fees are waived or reduced.)

Regarding the AP fees; the school has never paid the cost of AP tests since those fees are determined by and paid to the College Board.  In an attempt to forewarn parents of the fees involved, this year for the first time, the AP fees were placed on the fee list to give parents a heads-up over the cost of these tests.  This attempt to improve communication is being turned on its head by Ms. Christie.  What’s the old saying?  No good deed goes unpunished!  Note also that the state has a program that pays AP test fees for students who qualify for free/reduced - each year the school submits the paperwork to the state so our students can participate in that program.  This year Goochland is participating in a new program (VASS) that will pay students $100 if they score a 3, 4, or 5 on an AP test. This will certainly offset the cost of the AP exam.   I suggest that Ms. Christie makes sure her kids hit the books so she can get her AP fees back!

I am informed that the fees do not cover all the costs.  Ms. Christie conjectures $48,000 in “revenue” from fees, but fails to take into account any “costs.”  Even with the fees in place, the costs are not all covered by the revenue generated by fees.   Talking about revenue without discussing the associated costs promotes a misleading and incomplete picture. 

Sometimes fees can be construed as a ‘regressive tax’ as Ms. Christie suggests, but that does not appear to be the case here.  Each school receives instructional material appropriation from the regular operating budget to help cover costs.  I suppose that increased property taxes are an option in place of fees, but as indicated above, none of the non-elective fees were increased although Ms. Christie’s letter insinuates otherwise.  My kid is out of school, so I have no dog in this.  However, personally, I’d rather see the continued use of fees than face an increase in my property taxes to save a few bucks for those who are using the services in question.  The fees seem reasonable to me, given that we expect the schools to prepare our children for the future.

Next let’s talk about telecom costs.  This is more complicated, and breaking out the various components of telecommunications can be complicated – I know this because it’s my line of work. 

First, I saw the list of cell phone costs that Ms. Christie obtained with her FOIA request.  The list of people provided with phones is eminently acceptable.  There isn’t a person on the list who shouldn’t have a phone in my opinion. 

The FOIA information requested by Ms. Christie also details the chosen plans and the discounts and sharing methods used to reduce costs as much as possible.  It’s clear that some thought went into this and it appears that a decision to change vendors for some of the phones was made on the basis of reception quality throughout the county, and negotiated cost savings.  Ms Christie did not elect to share any of that supporting information.

How about the bookkeeping?  According to information I received from the school, at one time telephone costs were in Maintenance and Operations and costs for telecommunications were in Instruction.  Then, the state required that a Technology Category be created and costs related to broadband, wireless, routers, servers, etc. were moved to the new Technology category.  Telephones remained in the Instruction category.  Equipment leases, repairs, equipment purchases are made from both.  The bottom line stays the same regardless of which category, and right now the lines between Instruction, Maintenance and Operations, and Technology overlap in the telecommunications area. 

As a side note – Goochland received over $28,000 last year in E-Rate payments used to offset telecommunications costs.  (That covers the cell phone charges!) E-Rate funds can be used ONLY for instruction, thus the school keeps costs in Instruction in order to qualify for E-Rate.  Ms. Christie is apparently giving the school a hard time for using intelligent accounting in order to reduce costs and qualify for discounts. 

Had she asked, Ms. Christie might have also learned that collaboration between the schools and county saves duplication of costs, i.e. the county shares the broadband.  The county is developing a wireless network that the schools may be able to share in the future.  If the fees or the telecommunications costs are unreasonable, then maybe Ms. Christie could do some research and see how we compare with other counties.  Perhaps she could offer constructive solutions on how to generate the funds necessary to provide children with an education and cover these costs.  I see nothing in her letter that contributes to solving a problem – only creating additional dissention and hard feelings through the use of misleading, inaccurate or incorrect information. 

I’m tired of people blaming the government for everything.  That is a basic failure to accept personal responsibility.  The government is our mirror.  We put them there.  The blame is ours.  It’s time to accept it and do something about it.  It’s great to be involved, but as fellow citizens, let’s see how we can work to build up, rather than tear down.  What can we do FOR our community?  It’s time to come together and stop driving walls of separation between us.  We are all ONE.  We are all in this boat together.
 
Patrick Gannon
Maidens



Reader Comments


r carchman of columbia  |  Aug. 27, 2010, 12:28 PM

Dear truth teller of Goochland.I can easily see where the analysis permits the identification of inaccuracies but misleading…hmmm.do you also have insights into his intent?. In the absence of knowledge of his intent , misleading is not an appropriate descriptor…Sticking to the facts , such as they are, is probably the safer course for a truth teller unless you are also a fortune teller?


The Truth Teller of Goochland  |  Aug. 27, 2010, 12:09 PM

No matter how it is explained, tax dollars from some level of government are being used to provide cell phones for public school employees.  Therefore those cell phone numbers should be posted next to the employees’ names on the school’s website.  If that were to happen the number tax funded cell phones would go down dramatically, probably to around zero.  Problem solved.


Laughing of Goochland  |  Aug. 27, 2010, 12:07 PM

So Gannon is innacurate and misleading. The finger he points also has three pointing back at him. There is always someone smarter/better informed than you.

We need more collaboration to get past both our budgetary and communication problems. That goes for citizens to citizens, as well as government to citizens.


John of Manakin  |  Aug. 26, 2010, 09:48 PM

I welcome Mr Gannon’s comments to the greater discussion of K-12 schooling in Goochland County.  Glad to see more folks are taking an interest and voicing their opinions, and doing some research on their own.  Given this will be another challenging budget year, now is the time to begin these discussions….not November or January when our backs are against the wall.  I hope to see more OPEN and early public discussions from the SB on these budget issues.

Now, I am not sure about all the facts going back and forth on the various fees; however I do want to point out a few things on your comments about E*Rate as I do believe they are inaccurate.

First of all, you seem to be indicating that by trying to funnel all the telecom costs in “instruction” side of the budget the county is using “intelligent accounting” to maximize their E*rate support, even though some of these telecom costs are not for “instructional” purposes (e.g. maintenance, Admin, transportation, etc). 

I don’t believe that is why the schools is accounting for the costs in this manner, as I know the folks in the county understand the seriousness that something of that nature is to USAC, and if indeed providing services to transportation, administration or maintenance weren’t eligible for E*rate funding, I know they would not purposely misrepresent them as “instruction” just to obtain E*rate funding support.  Filing misleading E*rate submissions can easily land you in jail.  USAC is very vigilant on these issues.

So that being said, there is no “intelligent accounting” going on here.  Now, I am not sure if someone in the county indicated to you that this is the reason these costs are in this category, because if they did, they may need to do a little homework. I don’t believe that is an accurate assessment of the current E*Rate rules. 

E*Rate eligible services support is not determined by what goes in the “instruction” budget category versus what goes in the Admin or Transportation or other budget categories.  E*Rate rules, like any government program, are not always very clear and concise, and are ever changing (they are very confusing and there are a number of grey areas).  With E*Rate it comes down to WHERE the eligible services are being provided (eligible locations, both “on-site” and in some limited cases “off-site”), not what budget category those costs are classified in by local accountants.

Here is some text from the USAC website (notice the use of the term “non-instructional”):

Anyone can read more at http://www.usac.org

(from USAC—->)
Eligibility of Priority 1 Services in On-site Non-instructional Facilities.

Telecommunications services and Internet access provided to non-instructional facilities located on school or library property are eligible for support under this revised definition beginning with Funding Year 2004.

Examples of non-instructional facilities on school property include, but are not limited to, administrative buildings, school bus barns and garages, cafeteria offices, and facilities associated with athletic activities.

Eligible Activities.

The customary activities that occur on school or library property are now presumed to fall under the definition of educational purposes.

Examples of eligible activities for schools now include, but are not limited to, the school-related activities of school administrators, school counselors, school nurses, school technology workers, cafeteria workers, security guards, and school bus drivers. All eligible products and services must be provided to and paid for by the entities indicated as receiving service.  (<—-from USAC)

Thus, “instruction” is not the only budget categories that can receive E*rate support AND the last sentence that I pasted above would seem to indicate that eligible services should be broken out by budget category, being properly allocated to those “indicated as receiving service”.  I read that to mean USAC is indicating that telecom costs should be properly accounted for across all budget categories.  Internet, on the other hand, is more difficult. 

Here is some additional text from the USAC website regarding cell phone VOICE services for off-site locations.
(from USAC _—>)
Eligibility of Priority 1 Services Off-site.

In certain limited circumstances, telecommunications services used offsite may also be eligible.  Examples of these eligible uses include “a school bus driver’s use of wireless telecommunications services while delivering children to and from school, a library staff person’s use of wireless telecommunications service on a library’s mobile library unit van, and the use by teachers or other school staff of wireless telecommunications service while accompanying students on a field trip or sporting event.”
(<—-from USAC)

In many cases cell phones are NOT eligible for E*rate funding, with the exception of a few examples such as those listed above, or potentially if you have an employee who only uses the phone “on site” (potentially a special ed teacher who floats from one school to another on a regular basis and has no desktop phone).  As soon as that cell phone goes “off site” for circumstances not covered above, the schools need to allocated costs based on some allocation metric and only apply for the allocation portion of the monthly cost that is for “on-site” eligible situations. 

Voice services aside, ALL “off site” INTERNET (not voice, but Internet) connectivity (including that provided by cell phone provider wireless data service plans) are currently ineligible for E*Rate funding, and if the school is not properly allocating the Internet services enabled on service provider’s wireless devices that are used at offsite functions, they could be in breach of the law and the individual who files the E*rate submissions could end up in jail. 

The USAC takes this stuff very seriously as there have been countless gross abuses with the E*Rate program over the past dozen or so years that have landed people behind bars.  They have their own whistle blower site where anyone can submit a claim.

I may be incorrect in my understanding, and if I am, I am certainly willing to listen to someone who can educate me as to where I may be inaccurate.  Thanks.


r carchman of columbia  |  Aug. 26, 2010, 10:51 AM

It was refreshing to read Mr Gannon’s comments. I may not agree with them all but the details of his arguments are truly worth discussing in the spirit that he suggests. The size of the school budget , the effectiveness of the schooling , the real budget constraints, require a level of cooperation and descision making that as he also suggests we must take responibilty for..let us not define the issues by the extremes…it is the only way we do this as a community


r carchman of columbia  |  Aug. 25, 2010, 03:09 PM

Java Jodi’s closing really is a loss for the county. my wife and i always enjoyed the food , staff , ambience, including young parents with their children. in addition , during the school year, the presence of GHS kids was an added benefit. We have lossed not just another business but a rather unique eating and meeting place.


Page 3 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3


Submit Your Comments Below

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Deal of the Day