Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

I should clarify. I don't think they should receive higher stipends until their responsibilities increase. Currently, they have no incentive to ensure the Superintendent is using funds efficiently or effectively, and so they don't do that. Until they are held responsible for the tax increases they demand, I say keep their stipends just as they are.

I don't know why you think they don't have enough responsibilities for this to be a full-time job. The BOE compensation committee has already documented that current board members routinely spend more than 40 hours a week in the role.

That you think there isn't enough for them to do is bizarre.

I have no doubt that they spend a lot of time in their roles, but it isn't effective. They all seem afraid to question the Superintendent.

Afraid to question him? They are his boss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

I should clarify. I don't think they should receive higher stipends until their responsibilities increase. Currently, they have no incentive to ensure the Superintendent is using funds efficiently or effectively, and so they don't do that. Until they are held responsible for the tax increases they demand, I say keep their stipends just as they are.

I don't know why you think they don't have enough responsibilities for this to be a full-time job. The BOE compensation committee has already documented that current board members routinely spend more than 40 hours a week in the role.

That you think there isn't enough for them to do is bizarre.

I have no doubt that they spend a lot of time in their roles, but it isn't effective. They all seem afraid to question the Superintendent.