Letter to the Editor – BCSD

The Boundary County School District released an article to “set the record straight” on their receipt and use of almost one million dollars of taxpayer funding that they didn’t plan for and had been labeled in an earlier presentation and article as a “windfall.”

Their position is this is not a windfall but the result of their careful planning; those are their words, “careful planning.”

When they ask the question, “Where did the money come from” and then answer
themselves, they say, “…actual attendance was more than expected.” A significant portion of the funding the district receives from taxpayer funds is based on estimated average daily attendance. And in this case the district had higher attendance than they planned for, thus receiving extra funding from the taxpayers.

They didn’t carefully plan for this money; they were pleasantly surprised when attendance was 1 percent higher than they planned for and then attributed that 1% not to students in the brick & mortar schools but kids staying home and completing their education via online tools. This is only careful planning in that with a district with a decade long stable student population, they underestimated their attendance projection and thus are receiving more taxpayer money than they planned for.

So, let’s revisit the definition of windfall, “a large and unexpected gain or benefit, most
commonly referring to a sudden influx of money.” Not careful planning, but an unexpected gain. For the last 10 years the student population of the district has remained relatively stable, but the district budget has increased 35 percent.

The district’s number of non-teaching staff has increased 32 percent over the same period. The district isn’t “carefully planning” anything; their budget is running away just like other Districts across the nation.

The district also explained how they are bound by a contract to consider the input from the Boundary County Education Association (BCEA). No disagreement there, but the BCEA is a labor union that only represents the classified teaching staff or roughly 46 percent of the 150-160 employees of the district.

The BCEA has NEVER advocated for a reduction in taxpayer funds given to the district and have advocated for increasing levies on top of regular funds since the unions’ inception. The BCEA is only interested in increasing the cost of education and will advocate for spot bonuses for classified teaching staff before they advocate for extracurricular student activities or facility investment.

The BCEA does not speak for the taxpayer, nor do they take precedent over the taxpayers. Their role in discussing District revenue is to provide “recommendations” only.

The district closes their article with stating their goal is to be “prudent with taxpayer
money.” Patting themselves on their back they stated their BCEA recommended classified teaching staff bonuses are one-time payments and not permanent raises. They immediately follow this with the FACT that District is preparing for potential reductions in funds from the state, and that is why they are saving the remaining amount of the funds for the future.

They should have saved all of the funds for the future. They should have used all of the funds at reducing the need for future levies. They should have considered the
input of the taxpayers IN ADDITON to the BCEA.

The district’s article does not demonstrate “careful planning, “prudent use of taxpayer
money” or an appreciation for their taxpayer community. This was an easy ethical choice, save the money for future requirements and reduce the burden on taxpayers; instead, they “made it rain” for the BCEA. In the next vote, remember the district’s levies should have been offset by this funding but it wasn’t.

JON-PAUL MICKLE
Moyie Springs, Idaho