Hanya sahut sahutan dalam pemikiran.
Bukan apa apa, apalagi kalau kau mencari apa apa.
Sungguh, kau tak akan menemukan apa apa.
Melainkan sebuah gumam.

—

00.00

Manusia adalah manusia, ia bukan malaikat, bukan pula syaithan. Dalam dirinya selalu ada dua sisi yang memanusiakan kemanusiaannya. Kedua sisi yang tak pernah bisa dipaksakan. Mungkin saja bisa, namun bukan mustahil ada ketidak seimbangan. Merusak kemanusiaannya, mencampakan nuraninya, bahkan melanggar fitrah. Begitulah manusia, ia harus diperlakukan seperti manusia, dan dirawat kemanusiaanya, agar tetap menjadi menusia yang manusia.

Kemudian dalam beberapa kelebat episode kehidupannya, manusia menjadi jadi. Sebagian isi, tanpa kosong. Oh, bagai malaikat dan pahlawan super. Betapa aku mengaguminya. Begitu banyak kosa kata yang hilang dari benaknya. Karena ia hanya mau keberadaan saja. Dan hianglah seluruh negatif dalam kamus, bahkan kalkulatornya. Indahnya.

Aku pun kemudian menjadi jadikan, dan mebuat buatkan diriku, manusia berisi, saja! Sungguh, sampai saat ini tidak ada masalah denganku. Aku masih bisa menjadi jadi, mengada ada, dan membuat buatkan diriku. Menjadi berisi, walau hanya setengah, sepertiga, atau bahkan seperempat saja. Yang panting hanya berisi, saja! Yang kosongpun terus kucoba untuk kukosongkan, sehingga yang ada, benar benar ada, dan diada ada kan. Menjadi menusia setengah, atau mungkin setengah manusia. Yang penting ada, yang penting isi, karena yang kosong sudah benar benar kosong.

Friksi friksi tak ada masalah, dan tak patut dipermasalahkan. Keadaan yang sungguh bisa diterima, masih bisa, dan mungkin akan terus bisa. Hanya saja, kemudian ada perenungan, apakah hal ini dibenarkan ? Atau jangan jangan hanya dibenar benarkan ? Apakah dengan ini tetap memanusiakan manusia ? Apakah dengan ini, benar benar menjadi sesuatu yang isi, atau kekosongan ? Ataukah, ini adalah isi yang kosong ?

Masih dalam perenungan,
Dia saja berbicara pada keduanya.

haq dan bathil.
ma’ruf dan munkar.
mu’min dan munafiqin.
jannah dan nar.

Musa dan Fir’aun.
Muhammad dan Abu Jahal.

Ia menyuguhkan berita gembira, juga peringatan.
Sungguh, tak pernah meniadakan ketiadaan.
Tak pernah mengosongkan kekosongan.
Lantas, mengapa harus memenangkan catatan catatan manusia setengah manusia diatas catatan Sang Maha ?

Maha Benar ALLAH Atas Segala Firmannya.
Wallahu’alam bishowab.
Bismillahi awalu wal akhiru.

I’ve covered the M-16 and M-4 debate/issue/bone of contention here before but two news items came across my laptop and I’d thought I’d share my take:

• Defense Tech quotes and Army Times article that points to M-4 mods in the works Army wide.
• the civilian version of the HK-416 may NOT be crippled, that means it could be dropped into any M-4/M-16 style lower receiver.

From a new rail system to a gas-piston upgrade and a round counter, I hope the Army follows through. This would put a better rile in soldiers hands while the Army awaits for that “new technology” that’s on the horizon. (Color me skeptical, but when it does arrive I’ll be the first to cheer it on).

HK took a lot of flack for appearing to cave into the anti-gun lobby and modifying their HK-416 uppers to not work with any lower. The damn thing’s expensive enough as it is. If the rumor is true then black rile fans will P A R T Y!

Ich habe einen Interessanten Blog gelesen. Darin ging es um eine Fortbildung zum geprüften Aus- und Weiterbildungspädagogen. Die Prüfungsverordnung ließt sich allerdings wie ein “erweiterter AdA-Schein”. Welcher ja auch einer der möglichen Zulassungsvorraussetzungen ist.

Die große Frage ist nur, ob Weiterbildungsträger in der Zukunft auf so etwas achten werden. Oder ob es dabei bleibt, dass jeder der möchte gerne mal Dozent / Trainer werden kann. Ebenso bleibt die Frage offen ob sich so eine Fortbildung auch im Honorar wiederspiegelt.

Da ich eh gerade dabei bin den AdA-Schein zu machen, bin ich am überlegen, ob ich die o.g. Prüfung ebenfalls ablege. Im Stoff bin ja schon drin.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has been asked to eliminate a provision of the Air Carrier Access Act that requires documentation and 48 hours advance notice for users of psychiatric service animals. DOT is now seeking comment on this petition. This document is not a notice of proposed rulemaking. DOT has not decided whether to grant the petition by initiating rulemaking action or to deny the petition and keep the provisions without change. Comments must be received by December 17, 2009.

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel–Request for Public Comment
(author unknown)
Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:41:00 GMT

A little national news for the Philadelphia locals.  The ADA is now teaming up with Temple in a new community health pilot progarm.

Article Here

It looks like Temple University is going to be educating a new dental team member that will be placed in underserved communities.  The new title for this team member is the Community Dental Health Coordinator (CDHC).

The CDHC position will allow basic dental procedures to be performed outside of the dental practice.  Basic procedures like oral health screenings and Fluoride treatments will hopefully provide a channel for patients to connect to a dentist in the area where they can receive more comprehensive dental care.  I hope this position will provide those benefits.  I believe that education on the importance of oral health and the relation to systemic health will help increase treatment plan acceptance in underserved areas.

It will be interesting to see what the ADA finds by running this pilot program in Philadelphia.  It certainly is a step in the right direction to providing proper dental care in some of our urban areas.

Another Article

First off, I just watched the “Bad Romance” video and you are right about the lingerie. Which of the fifty ensembles is the best, do you think? I’m leaning toward this red number, but the black and silver one is up there. I like her more and more.

Asked if she’s boy-crazy, she says, “”Yeah. Well, I’m girl-crazy too. I really depends on where I am. I love men, I love women and I love sex, but I’m actually pretty introverted right now because I’m so enveloped in my work, and it’s hard to let anybody near that. People f— with your energy, and it’s very hard to find people that are supportive of your art and don’t want to take time away from it. A lot of times, boyfriends and girlfriends get jealous and want all your attention, and I really don’t have time for that.”

That brings up another issue: how everyone in the 90s was bisexual.

But wait! We were talking about the male gaze…

Quick anecdote: I was walking down the street with Kathleen Hanna recently and at a corner a drunk guy started talking to us. I was just ignoring him and gearing up to walk faster, like always, but she said, loudly and distinctly, “I do not care what you think” and held her hand out. Only then did we resume walking. He was completely stunned. I thought that was an insanely cool — and very 90s Woman — move.

Lynn Harris and Patricia Ireland. Note the EEEEVIL RED EYES of a FEMINIST.

Here is my slice of ’90s feminism. Background: I had gone to an all girls’ school in Boston, an old-fashioned place but with feminist values, values that were almost never questioned. I mean, why couldn’t girls do anything? We had no competition. (Especially not from our brother school, Bonehead Academy.)

The only overt disturbance in the feminist force I recall is when, through a long story involving dramatic lifesaving surgery by a classmate’s doctor on a friend of Gloria Steinem’s, well, guess who spoke at our graduation in 1986? When we’d discussed it, one more conservative classmate asked, lip curled, “Isn’t she a feminist?” Most of the rest of us were pretty much like, “Yeah!”

But then college was co-ed. And boys there were —who knew? — smart. They even raised their hands and talked in class. Can you imagine? They had thoughts, certain kinds of deep thoughts, that I wouldn’t have had in a hundred years. This I found intimidating. Especially when my own damn boyfriend turned out to be extra-super-smart. This I found very intimidating. When I whimpered to my mother that I wasn’t sure I was smart enough, she made me read Carol Gilligan’s In A Different Voice, about how men and women think and perform moral reasoning in contrasting — but equally valid — ways. Jackpot! All of a sudden my political feminism — which already included working for abortion rights, etc. — had a deeper grounding in my own life.

That was just the beginning of the ’90s, but it made me a bigger activist — I worked for NOW for years after I graduated (the era when we began to define terms like “date rape” and “sexual harassment”) — and a stronger person, for the rest of the decade. Though my fashion choices, it should be noted, were decidedly less powerful. (Possibly worse than the 80s, when we had an excuse.) — Lynn Harris

P.S. I still wear boots with babydoll dresses.

Updated Employment Poster, Policies & Procedures Required Immediately

Employers, unions, employment agencies, employment training agencies and their agents face significant new employment discrimination liability risks if they violate new genetic information-based employment non-discrimination or fail to comply with genetic information confidentiality requirements that took effect under Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) on Saturday, November 21, 2009.  Employers need immediately to update their employment posters, carefully audit their existing records and practices to identify existing information and practices that may create special risks under GINA and take appropriate action to comply with the GINA rules. Employers needed an updated poster can find a copy on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website here.

Under the newly effective employment provisions of Title II of GINA, Federal law now prohibits employers of 15 or more employees and certain other entities from using individuals’ “genetic information” when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions, requires “genetic information” be kept separately and confidential, and prohibits retaliation. 

When assessing their risk under GINA, employers should be careful not to overlook or underestimate the genetic information collected or possessed by their organizations and the risks attendant to this information.  Many employers will be surprised by the breadth of the depth of “genetic information.”  The definition of “genetic information” GINA defines “genetic information” broadly as including not only information about genetic tests about an individual or his family member as well as information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of such individual, GINA also specifies that any reference to genetic information concerning an individual or family member includes genetic information of a fetus carried by a pregnant woman and an embryo legally held by an individual or family member utilizing an assisted reproductive technology.  Pending issuance of regulatory guidance, GINA’s inclusion of information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members” is likely to present a liability trap door for many unsuspecting employers.

Failing to properly address GINA compliance could expose employers to substantial risk.  Violation of the employment provisions of Title II subjects an employer to potentially significant civil judgments like those that generally are available for race, sex, and other federal employment discrimination claims covered by the Civil Rights Act.  Accordingly, employers and others who have not already done so should act quickly to review and update their policies and procedures to manage their new compliance and liability exposures under GINA Title II.

While the agency responsible for construing and enforcing Title II of GINA, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), to date has published only limited guidance about it, the absence of this final guidance should not be read by employers as a sign their compliance may be delayed.  While not yet issued in final form, proposed regulations interpreting Title II of GINA accessible here published by the EEOC in March, 2009  and a subsequently released factsheet accessible here published by the EEOC in May, 2009 titled “Background Information for EEOC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” provide insights about how the EEOC may be expected to view its provisions.   While many employers have delayed taking action to update their policies and procedures in hopes that final guidance would be forthcoming before Title II took effect, time has now run out.  Accordingly, employers who have not already done so should act quickly to implement all necessary changes to position themselves to defend against a potential claim that their organization may have violated GINA Title II. 

Employment-Related Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Rules In Focus

Applicable to employers, unions, employment agencies, employment training agencies and their agencies based on genetic information by employers, Title II imposes sweeping prohibitions against employment discrimination based on genetic information.  Title II generally has three components:

Employment Discrimination Prohibited.  Section 202 of GINA makes it illegal for an employer:

• To fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any employee, or otherwise to discriminate against any employee with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the employee, because of genetic information with respect to the employee;
• To limit, segregate, or classify the employees of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any employee of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of the employee as an employee, because of genetic information with respect to the employee; or
• To request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee except as specifically permitted by GINA and otherwise applicable law.

GINA §§ 203 and 204 extend similar prohibitions to employment agencies, labor unions and training programs.

Confidentiality Mandates. Under GINA § 206, an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee that possesses genetic information about an employee or member must protect the confidentiality of that information.  Under its provisions, employers and other covered entities must:

•  Treat the genetic information as a confidential medical record of the employee or member and maintain it on separate forms and in separate medical files in the same manner as required for other medical records required to be maintained as confidential by Americans With Disabilities Act § 102(d)(3)(B); and
• Only disclose it in the narrow circumstances specifically allowed by GINA.

Anti-Retaliation.  GINA also prohibits retaliation or other discrimination against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice prohibited by GINA, for making a charge, testifying or assisting or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under GINA. 

GINA’s Additional Group Health Plan Nondiscrimination & Privacy Rules Also Require Attention

In addition to taking appropriate steps to comply with the employment rules of Title II of GINA, employers and their group health plan fiduciaries and service providers also should ensure that the group health plan has been appropriately updated to comply with the group health plan nondiscrimination and privacy mandates of Title I of GINA. 

Effective for all group health plan years beginning on or after May 21, 2009, GINA’s new restrictions on the collection and use of genetic information by group health plans added under Title I of GINA are accomplished through the expansion of a series of already existing group health plan nondiscrimination and privacy rules.  GINA’s group health plan provisions amend and expand the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to implement sweeping new federal restrictions on the collection, use, and disclosure of information that falls within its broad definition of “genetic information” by  group health plans.  For individual health insurers, GINA’s restrictions take effect May 22, 2009.  The broad definition of the term “genetic information” in GINA will require group health plan sponsors and insurers to carefully review and update their group health plan documents, communications, policies and practices to comply with forthcoming implementing regulations to avoid liability under new GINA’s rules governing genetic information collection, use, protection and disclosure in a series of areas.  

In this respect, wellness and disease management programs are likely to require special scrutiny and attention. GINA’s inclusion of information about the “manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members” raises potential challenges for a broad range of group health plan health assessment and other wellness and disease management programs which provide financial incentives or condition eligibility on the provision of family health histories or other information that could be construed as genetic information.  The implications of these GINA prohibitions are further complicated by recent changes in the disability nondiscrimination rules and guidance under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Title I of GINA generally prohibits group health plans from collecting genetic information for underwriting or eligibility purposes.  It also expands already existing federal rules prohibiting group health plans from discriminating among individuals for purposes of determining eligibility or setting premiums based on health status previously enacted as part of HIPAA.   These existing rules already prohibit group health plans and health insurance issuers from discriminating based on health related factors including genetic information for purposes of determining eligibility or premiums. GINA expands these existing nondiscrimination requirements to further regulate group health plan’s use and collection of genetic information.   Under GINA’s nondiscrimination rules, group health plans and health insurers may not:

• Request, require or purchase genetic information for underwriting purposes or in advance of an individual’s enrollment;
• Adjust premiums or contribution amounts of the group based on genetic information;
• Request or require an individual or family member to undergo a genetic test except in limited situations specifically allowed by GINA;
• Impose a preexisting condition exclusion based solely on genetic information, in the absence of a diagnosis of a condition;
• Discriminate against individuals in eligibility and continued eligibility for benefits based on genetic information; or
• Discriminate against individuals in premium or contribution rates under the plan or coverage based on genetic information, although such a plan or issuer may adjust premium rates for an employer based on the manifestation of a disease or disorder of an individual enrolled in the plan.

GINA also prohibits insurers providing individual health insurance from establishing rules for eligibility, adjusting premiums or contribution amounts for an individual, imposing preexisting condition exclusions based on, requesting or requiring individuals or family members to undergo genetic testing.

Of particular concern to many plan sponsors and fiduciaries are the potential implications of these new rules on existing wellness and disease management features group health plans. Of particular concern is how regulators will treat the collection of family medical history and certain other information as part of health risk assessments used in connection with these programs. Although official guidance is still pending, many are concerned that regulators will construe certain commonly used practices of requiring covered persons to provide family medical histories or other genetic information through health risk assessments (HRAs) to qualify for certain financial incentives as a prohibited underwriting practice under GINA.  Even where health risk assessments are not used, however, most group health plan sponsors should anticipate that GINA will require specific amendments to their plan documents, communications and processes.

Taking timely action to comply with these nondiscrimination and collection prohibitions is important.  Under amendments to ERISA made by GINA, group health plan noncompliance can create significant liability for both the plan and its sponsor.  Participants or beneficiaries will be able to sue noncompliant group health plans for damages and equitable relief.  If the participant or beneficiary can show an alleged violation would result in irreparable harm to the individual’s health, the participant or beneficiary may not have to exhaust certain otherwise applicable Department of Labor administrative remedies before bringing suit.  In addition to these private remedies, GINA also authorizes the imposition of penalties against employers and other sponsors of group health plans that violate applicable requirements of GINA of up to $500,000. The minimum penalties generally are set at the greater of $100 per day or a minimum penalty amount ranging from $2,500 for de minimus violations corrected before the health plan received notice of noncompliance to $15,000 in cases in which the violations are more than de minimus.  GINA also includes language allowing the Secretary of Labor to reduce otherwise applicable penalties for violations that could not have been identified through the exercise of due diligence or when the plan corrects the violation quickly.

GINA Amendments To Health Plan Privacy Rules Under HIPAA

In addition to its nondiscrimination rules, GINA also amends HIPAA to make clear that “genetic information” as defined by HIPAA is protected health information protected by HIPAA’s Privacy & Security Standards of HIPAA. This means that it will require that all genetic information be treated as protected health information subject to the Privacy and Security Standards applicable to group health plans covered by HIPAA. Although the statutory provisions that accomplish these changes are deceptively simple, compliance with these requirements likely will require group health plans and their business associates to amend existing privacy policies, notices and practices to appropriately restrict disclosures for underwriting, operations and certain other uses to withstand scrutiny under the GINA privacy rule amendments. 

When contemplating these changes, many plan sponsors and administrators also will want to consider and begin preparing to comply with other refinements to their existing privacy and security practices required in response to HIPAA privacy and security rule amendments enacted as part of the HITECH Act provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH Act”) provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).  As GINA specifies that violations of its privacy rule restrictions trigger the same sanctions as other privacy rule violations, group health plans and their business associates also should give due consideration to these penalty exposures.  The HITECH Act amended and increased civil penalties for HIPAA privacy violations in many circumstances effective February 17, 2009.  

GINA’s fractured assignment of responsibility and authority to develop, implement and enforce regulatory guidance of its genetic information rules can create confusion for parties involved in compliance efforts. Because the group health plan requirements of Title I of GINA are refinements to the group health plan privacy and nondiscrimination rules previously enacted as part of HIPAA, GINA specifically assigned authority to construe and enforce its group health plan requirements to the agencies responsible for the interpretation and enforcement of those original rules:  (1) the Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA); (2)  the Internal Revenue Services (IRS), and (3) the Department of Health & Human Services. 

These three agencies in early October published the interim final regulations construing the group health plan manatees of Title II of GINA, which are available for review here.  Group health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries and service providers should act quickly to review and update their group health plan documents, procedures and other materials to comply with these new mandates.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with advising and assisting employers with these and other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, and internal controls matters. If your organization needs assistance with assessing, managing or defending these or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit practices, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a nationally recognized author and speaker, Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, and other labor and employment laws, as well as advising and defending employers and others against tax, employment discrimination and other labor and employment, and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on these and other labor and employment, compensation, health and other employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 22 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.   For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here.  

For important information concerning this communication click here.   If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

©2009 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved. 

4. School Site Presentation

Teaching Principal and Administrator Daniel Hoffman gave a presentation on Coulterville-Greeley Elementary and Coulterville High School. Items that were of particular interest to me:

• CGE has a wonderful partnership with Mariposa County’s Red Cloud Library, which is right across the street. The library is open 3 days per week, but the school has access whenever they need it; teachers can take their students to check out books even when the library is closed. The school integrated their books with the library’s books. The school’s books include reading level tags. The library has increased the number of books the children have access to tremendously.
• The school has a robust sports program. Thirty children, or almost half the school, participate. They have an 18 game basketball schedule, volleyball, soccer, and football, and often travel to other schools for games. It’s great incentive for the children to keep their grades up, and the system supports intervention. If grades fall below 2.x, children go to study hall at lunch time to work on improving their grades before they fall below 2.0, at which time they become ineligible from playing sports.
• They have an after school program.

6. Reports

6.1 Board Member Reports:

Kim Forsythe-Allison reported on an FFA meeting she had attended. The National Resource Team placed tenth in the nation.

Joe Cardoso said he had attended the MES dance and was impressed with the variety of activities that were available for the children. He also attended the MES Veteran’s Day celebration, followed by the Board of Supervisor’s meeting where each board member recognized the great event at MES. He also attended a MCHS Boosters meeting and is impressed by what groups like this are doing to help the students—he mentioned the Boosters had just bought some basketball equipment. Mr. Cardoso encouraged schools to email him and other board members about school events. He would try to attend whenever possible.

Janette Gamble did not have any events to report on, but echoed but thanked Mr. Hoffman for his presentation.

Eldon Henderson said he had been to a Coulterville-Greeley Hill club dinner and had also gone to Lake Don Pedro and taken a tour of the new facility.

Student Body representative Richard Ballinger always has a detailed report that includes what’s happening with sports teams and going on at school. The item that struck me from his report is that profits from fundraising activities are down 25% and more from what they were last year.

6.2 MCTA: Ann Dolchanczyk reported that parent teacher conference week was ending, and she was very impressed with all the work teachers put into having things ready for the parents. Some teachers had a lot more reports to prepare given the numbers of students in some classrooms. Also, they were vacuuming floors and doing extra cleaning since custodial time has been reduced. Ms. Dochanczyk began to mention grievances. Board President Henderson asked if grievances were proceeding through proper channels. They are, and so Mr. Henderson asked that it be left at that.

6.3 CSEA: President Ken Price reported negotiations were beginning the next day.

6.4 Superintendent’s Report: Randy Panietz said the FAQs have been updated, categorized, and some have been put into an archive that is available online at www.Mariposa.k12.ca.us. He said the FAQs have a lot of good information and encouraged everyone to read through them. The Superintendent attended the high school play, the Veteran’s Day celebration at MES, the Mariposa Safe Families event honoring Kathy Delany who is retiring (he will invite the new director to a future board meeting), and a meeting regarding the Wawona School. The Wawona School in Yosemite National Park was transferred from MCUSD to the Bass Lake School District in Madera County some 15 years ago. Bass Lake has announced plans to close Wawona School at the end of this school year. The superintendent is getting ready for another meeting regarding the closure and any other possible options on December 2, and he invited all board members to attend. The Superintendent has been in contact with County Health Officer, Dr. Mosher, regarding the recent H1N1 clinics. Dr. Mosher said 1300 people were vaccinated at the clinics, which is far below the goal. Dr. Mosher is working on arranging clinics at certain district schools, making the vaccine available in more locations for those who are interested.

8. Consent Agenda

Joe Cardoso asked that item F regarding the obsolete supplies and equipment list be pulled for discussion. All other items were approved.

F. Mr. Cardoso asked if the computers on the list were usable, and if so, if there was a way to get them into the hands of students whose families don’t have computers. Technology Coordinator Dean Bernacchi said the district used to have a garage sale that included old computer equipment as well as a variety of other items. However, the personnel costs involved in organizing and running the sale were too great to continue to do them. He said there is a process for disbursing old equipment. Members of the Leadership team are aware of the policy, and it is up to the schools to move forward with it in regards to their own equipment.

The school district holds onto equipment a long time, so the computers on the list are outdated and not internet capable. There’s been a lot of salvaging of parts from items on the obsolete list. Proprietary software must be taken off of them if they are to be given (sold for at least $1, reminded Bob Morse, since they were bought with public money), but they would still have the Windows operating system and WordPad.

Superintendent Panietz suggested a motion be made to either remove the item, take it back to Leadership, and ask them to review the obsolete list, taking any usable computers off and get them into the hands of students, or move the item with the stipulation that the former would take place. Mr. Cardoso said he would hate to move to approve the list and then not have the review of the list taken seriously by Leadership, with nothing come off the list. Mr. Morse said he thought the issue with this list is that all the items are sitting on pallets in an outside location, waiting to be picked up before the rain comes. Mr. Bernacchi reiterated that these computers have been heavily salvaged and are very old, but that maybe Mr. Cardoso’s request could be brought to Leadership for consideration for equipment schools dispose of in the future. Mr. Cardoso made the motion to approve the obsolete supplies/equipment list. The motion was seconded and passed.

9.1 Monthly Construction Update. Bob Morse reported that one day they had 20 contractors at the Lake Don Pedro multipurpose room construction site, and that 10 had submitted bids for remaining work that needs to be completed. While DMSI’s original bid a year ago for the remaining work in question had been $850k, the bidding process brought the cost down to $349k, a huge cost savings to the district’s budget for this project. The bids are on four separate aspects of the project. Mr. Cardoso asked why all the work wasn’t put to bid in one package. Mr. Morse explained that dividing it into four sections saves the district more money, as a company that bid low on one aspect, actually bid higher on another, and this was true for all the bidders. Dividing it into four allows the district to accept the lowest bid on each piece of the project and realize more cost savings. Mr. Cardoso asked if there would be difficulty in coordinating the various contractors that would slow down the project and delay the completion date. The site foreman, Travis Kirk, said he will make sure it is coordinated such that there will not be delays. The final date of when the building will be ready to occupy depends on the board accepting the bids and also on weather, but it is anticipated to be ready for occupancy in January.

10. Personnel

10.1 Resolution No 09-39 Classified Layoffs

This resolution was to reduce the hours of the custodian at Coulterville High School by 1 ½ hours, and to transfer the custodian’s services for that 1 ½ hours to Spring Hill. Mr. Henderson said he had spoken to the C/GH principal and had concerns about reducing the custodian’s hours at that site, but the district would have to see how it goes. There was also concern about the distance the employee would have to travel from Coulterville HS to Spring Hill. Mr. Rosander said there had been various options discussed with the employee, and this is the one that had been chosen. The item was approved.

11. Policies and Regulations

11.1 Revision to AR 1312.1, Complaints Concerning District Employees

Superintendent Panietz said the changes reflected what was requested at the last meeting and no vote was needed.

11.2 Revision to BB 9910, Terms of Office

Superintendent Panietz said that this particular board bylaw was last revised in 1993. The California School Board Association (CSBA) recommended language has been added. It doesn’t affect board member’s terms or the staggering of terms or anything else. Ms. Gamble moved the item, Mr. Cardoso seconded, and all were in favor.

11.3 Revision to BP 0430, Comprehensive Local Plan for Special Education

Ms. Damm explained the revision aligns with SELPA and brings the district up to date with current language. Ms. Forsythe-Allison moved the item, Ms. Gamble seconded, and all were in favor.

11.4 Revision to BP 0510, School Accountability Report Card

The revision allows alignment with CSBA recommendations. The SARC is updated annually, with copies available online and in school offices. Ms. Forsythe-Allison moved the item, Ms. Gamble seconded, and all were in favor.

12. Finance and Business

Superintendent Panietz noted that Linda Levesque joined MCUSD as Director of Business Services on October 21, and that she would be presenting items in this section.

12.1 Application and Resolution 09-42, K-3 Class Size Reduction Program

Ms. Levesque explained that this is the application needed for the school district to receive funding through the state’s class size reduction program for 2009-10. The state caps the numbers at what they were at the beginning of last year—the largest class was 32 students. Anything over 20.44 is pro-rated according to the class count. This application will allow the district to receive an estimated $564k this year. Final payments are based on actual enrollment data. This item was approved.

12.2 Unaudited Actuals 2008-09

The details of the budget report can be found in the board packet, at http://www.mariposa.k12.ca.us/Board%20Items/Agendas/09-10%20Agendas/11-19-09%20MCUSD%20Regular%20Board%20Meeting%20Packet%20REV.pdf

Ms. Levesque went through a very informative powerpoint presentation. The bottom line is that the school district had a higher ending balance for the 2008-09 school year than anticipated for a couple of reasons:

• The state had announced planned cuts to ADA revenue limit funds in 2008-09, and the district therefore made cuts, reorganized, reallocated what used to be restricted funds into the general fund, and prepared a budget that the board approved based on that information. However, the state was so late in passing its final budget that the 2008-09 revenue limit cuts could not be taken from the school districts’ budgets in 2008-09. Instead, these cuts will be realized in 2009-10. This resulted in what looks like an inflated bottom line (and is the case for every school district budget throughout California). But in fact, those revenue limit reductions will happen this school year, so it is not truly extra savings.
• The district saw some unexpected savings in areas such as salaries, benefits, books and supplies, operating services, and other miscellaneous places. On the other hand, less money came in than expected from federal, state, and local funding (less by $251k in local dollars) and there were other item categories that cost the district more than anticipated. The bottom line, however, shows that overall the district saved more money than anticipated.

The good news about the extra savings is that it will help mitigate the possibility of mid-year cuts, pending the state budget. There may be enough to restore items for students that were “swept” (went from restricted to unrestricted) in last year’s budget, for instance a textbook adoption, GATE funds, and so on. But projections are difficult. It’s hard to know how much the state will take and how much the district will have left to work with.

One other item that was discussed in this section was that the ending balance also reflects ARRA that funds must be spent by September 2011 (not just allocated, but actually spent). This is one reason it is difficult to allocate ARRA funds towards salaries (there won’t be any after the September 2011). Additionally, ARRA funding restrictions and guidelines have been changing and evolving due to the state’s financial crisis.

The district will receive the budget from the state in January, and most likely will come to the board with recommendations in February. Because of the work done last year, the district may be able to avoid lay-offs. But again, this depends on the budget that comes down from the state.

12.3 Resolution 09-41 Gann Limits

This resolution is required annually to verify that as a government agency, the district is not spending “faster than the growth of population and inflation”. It just verifies (each year) that we are in compliance.

12.4 Change Order for the Lake Don Pedro MP Room Project

This change order had been brought to the board once before at the 10/15/2009 meeting and it was requested that it be brought back. Summary:

The school district had created a pad for the multipurpose building early in the construction process (prior to this superintendent). After the pad was built, the project had a necessary change in direction: the site foreman was no longer a district employee but rather hired out, and a lot of the work the district had originally thought it would do itself was determined could not be done by the district because it went over the number of legally allowable hours for this type of work. While the change of direction was being implemented, the pad sat waiting. When the district was ready to start the project again, the pad was tested and found to be too dry. This wasn’t due to faulty work the first time around. Rather it was due to the length of time the pad sat before construction work began. Mr. Morse explained that a proper change-order was never done to cover the cost of this work, although a purchase order had been submitted to pay the contractor. He asked the board to approve the change order.

On questioning from Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Morse admitted that the cost was probably higher than it should be, but the agreement had been made and there were other concerns he and the current superintendent had about the contract between DMSI and the school district. The contract predated both Mr. Morse and Superintendent Panietz—if they had been involved in the creation of the contract, it would have looked quite different. The district has been trying to tidy up loose ends and get this project closed. By having DMSI resurface the pad for an extra cost, the district ensured that DMSI is the responsible party for the entire building, from the ground up, which is important in case there are problems in the future. If a crack shows up in a wall after the work is completed, and one company is responsible for the pad and another is responsible for the building, then those two companies will be pointing fingers at each other as the one responsible for the crack and for fixing it. It would then have to go into litigation, which is costly, and it would be hard to prove who was really at fault. Having chosen DMSI to repurpose the pad, even though the bid was high, means that they are responsible for the pad and the building, and if there are any cracks or any other problems, DMSI is the responsible party and must fix it.

Mr. Cardoso said it made him sick to his stomach to pay DMSI so much more for this pad. It could have been done for $50k, but instead was done for $80k. He wished to not approve the change order, but rather have it brought back after DMSI has completed all work on the project, and negotiate down the price. Mr. Morse and Mr. Kirk explained that waiting until after the project was completed would cause a delay in occupancy. The Department of State Architects, who must sign off on this project before the building is occupied, will require this change order paperwork before they sign off. In addition, if this item was brought to litigation, it is not likely the district would win. DMSI was requested to do this work and the bid was approved by the board.

The contract the district has with DMSI predates current board members, Bob Morse, and the Superintendent, and is very much written to the favor of DMSI. There is no start date specified, no end date specified, and so no way to collect damages due to lateness. Given all of this, the district is trying to finish this project as quickly as it can, minimizing damages. Mr. Kirk reminded the board that though this change order is expensive, the district has seen significant cost savings in the current bidding process. DMSI’s bid for the entire remainder of the project was $850k. The four bids bring the total cost down to $349k. This is well under the original budget, even taking into account the change order for the pad work.

Mr. Cardoso asked about Mr. Kirk’s contract, which is due to end shortly. Mr. Morse said he would be working with Mr. Kirk on an addendum to the contract, so that it will last to the completion of the project. He and Mr. Kirk noted that Mr. Kirk’s costs were more than recouped by the savings Mr. Kirk had realized for the district in the bidding process.

Mr. Cardoso made a motion to table the change order until DMSI turns in all change orders and the project is completed. This was seconded by Mrs. Forsythe-Allison, but the motion did not carry as Mr. Henderson and Ms. Gamble were not in favor.

More discussion followed. Mr. Morse suggested that since the change order must go to DSA before the building is closed out, perhaps a better way to negotiate with DMSI would be through the retention clause—per the contract, the school district retains 10% of this $2.5 million project until all work is completed. The school district could negotiate funds from DMSI through the retention funds. Mr. Kirk cautioned against this, however, as there is also a clause in the contract granting DMSI a certain percentage increase on the $2.5 million every year for inflation. DMSI has not asked for this and said they will not ask for it. However, if the school district tries to negotiate back monies that the board already approved to be paid to DMSI for the pad work, then DMSI might just turn around and ask for the inflationary increase. This would cost the school district significantly more than the change order amount. The school district does not have legal grounds to ask for a decrease in the amount charged for the pad work; DMSI does have the legal grounds to ask for the inflationary increase.

All agreed that any future contract for construction would be written quite differently, with a beginning date, end date, and grounds for recourse. But again, this contract predated the present MCUSD team, and the goal now is to end the project as soon as possible and have the building approved and occupied by the students.

Ms. Gamble made the motion, recognizing the unhappiness all felt in paying more for the pad work than was necessary, but also recognizing the situation and wanting the project to come to completion and have the building occupied by students, to approve the change order. Mr. Henderson seconded the motion. After a long pause, Mr. Cardoso said he was in favor. Ms. Forsythe-Allison was opposed.

13 Other

13.1 Safety on School Buses

Mr. Morse reported that a committee is forming to examine this issue. The committee includes the bus dispatcher, drivers, MCHS principal Celeste Azevedo, and there was discussion of adding a student member. Mr. Cardoso expressed great concern over what he has heard of happening on school buses. It is hard for drivers who are all transporting multiple grade levels. Mr. Cardoso said he knew the most effective fix would be to have another person riding in the back of the bus. But this is too much to expect of parent volunteers, and would be too expensive to fund. Mr. Morse said he has heard concerns about drugs being transported on buses. This went down when the district had used dogs to check the students on buses, but the problem has increased without the dogs. Mr. Morse said he would report the committee’s progress at a future meeting.

13.2 How to Fill Board Vacancy—Election or Appointment

The board voted to fill the vacancy by appointment. Ms. Peters’ letter gives 60 day notice, the last day of which would be January 5. The board has 60 days from January 5 to fill the vacancy. If they are no suitable candidates and they cannot fill the vacancy, they can run with a 4 person board until the next election. There will be a notice in next week’s Gazette, and the week after that. The Superintendent would like two board members to review the letters and any other materials requested that come in by early December, and hold the interviews in public session at the December 17 meeting.

14 Pending items

Estimated presentation dates:

Motor Pool – Dec
TB/Fingerprinting process – Dec
Food Service – Ms. Levesque met with the committee last Friday, and they will meet again
Election by Trustee Area vs Trustees at Large – Jan
Graduation Requirements – Jan
PE Curriculum – Jan
Alternative Class Schedules – Jan

15 Future Agenda Items

Mr. Cardoso asked for an update on the Yaqui Gulch property. Mr. Cardoso also asked for a resolution to be drafted to the state, explaining the unique characteristics of our district and how particularly devastating state cuts are to MCUSD. Ms. Gamble requested an update on the Lake Don Pedro High School situation since the joint board meeting with the Groveland Big Oak Flat school board.

An Oklahoma hospital has agreed to pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit filed over failure to accommodate a hearing-impaired operating room scrub technician. Tulsa’s St. John’s has also agreed to provide disability discrimination training to employees and make reports on ADA requests to the EEOC for the next three years. The problem started when doctors complained to administrators about the hearing of scrub technician LaQuita Reherman. She wears hearing aids in both ears. The hospital removed Reherman from her position and let her go when she failed to find another position within the system. But the EEOC said the problems wasn’t Reherman but the loud music played in the operating room. Plus, St. John’s made no effort to assist her in finding another position.

Read More at DeafNewsToday.com

Tulsa Hospital Lawsuit Settled
Deaf News Today
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:02:00 GMT

Do you already have a dissertation subject, Kara? Because this video basically distills everything about 90s feminism, from the male gaze to symbols of aggression to whether or not Bettie Page was in fact an icon of oppression or of liberation. Also, wow do the two of them look hot.

batik madura

lt br gt

Kredit untuk sederhana dan metode pelatihan yang kuat milik para senama Dr Izumi Tabata batik madura dan tim peneliti dari National Institute of Fitness dan Olahraga di Tokyo Batik Madura Jepang. Hello world inovatif studi mereka yang diterbitkan dalam jurnal Kedokteran dan Sains di Olahraga

Meskipun Dr Tabata menggunakan siklus latihan mengerem secara mekanis mesin Anda Batik Madura dapat menerapkan protokol ini untuk hampir semua olahraga. Sebagai contoh latihan Tabata dasar dapat dilakukan dengan sit-up. Otot yang digunakan Batik Madura lebih baik jadi gunakan penuh menekuk lutut-sit-up. Sit-up non-stop selama detik diikuti oleh detik istirahat. Ulangi untuk total siklus.

Pushups

Chin-up atau Pull-up

Perhatikan -detik waktu istirahat dalam latihan Tabata adalah penting baik secara fisik maupun mental. Mereka tidak hanya mengizinkan pemulihan parsial mereka juga menyediakan bantuan Batik Madura psikologis. Switching bolak-balik dari bekerja untuk beristirahat membuat latihan pergi dengan cepat. Plus hal itu memungkinkan Anda untuk melatih di tingkat yang lebih tinggi intensitas yang interval apa semua tentang.

Cukup banyak bentuk latihan kardiovaskular yang menggunakan sejumlah besar otot-otot dapat disesuaikan agar sesuai dengan interval latihan Tabata sehingga merasa bebas untuk menjadi kreatif. Selain latihan yang disebutkan di atas gunakan mereka dengan sprint burpees seorang lompat tali tas berat treadmill atau mesin dayung. Mengurangi kemungkinan cedera dengan memilih tingkat intensitas sesuai dengan tingkat Anda hias – menjadi konservatif. Menggabungkan berbagai ke Batik Madura latihan Tabata. Beberapa sesi per minggu akan batik madura menawarkan banyak intensitas.

laptop second

lt br gt

The Tabata Protokol adalah pelatihan intensitas tinggi rejimen yang menghasilkan hasil yang luar biasa. Sebuah latihan Tabata juga disebut Tabata urutan adalah sebuah pelatihan laptop second interval siklus Laptop Bekas detik dari latihan intensitas maksimum Notebook Second diikuti oleh detik istirahat diulang-ulang tanpa jeda kali untuk total empat menit. Dalam konteks kelompok Anda dapat menyimpan nilai dengan menghitung berapa banyak Notebook Bekas lift Laptop Bekas / melompat / apa Notebook Bekas pun yang Anda lakukan di masing-masing dari babak kedua. Bulat dengan nomor terkecil adalah skor Notebook Second Anda.

Kredit untuk sederhana dan metode pelatihan yang kuat milik para senama Dr Izumi Tabata dan tim peneliti dari National Institute of Fitness dan Olahraga di Tokyo Jepang. inovatif studi mereka yang diterbitkan dalam jurnal Kedokteran dan Sains di Olahraga

Meskipun Dr Tabata menggunakan siklus latihan mengerem secara mekanis mesin Anda dapat menerapkan protokol ini untuk hampir Laptop Second semua olahraga. Sebagai contoh latihan Tabata dasar dapat dilakukan dengan sit-up. Otot yang digunakan lebih baik jadi gunakan penuh menekuk lutut-sit-up. Sit-up non-stop selama detik diikuti oleh detik istirahat. Ulangi untuk total siklus.

Ini membantu untuk dapat melihat jam Laptop Second dinding dengan kedua tangan selama empat menit Anda menyenangkan. Berhenti di dua puluh detik istirahat sepuluh detik dan pergi lagi. Mengawasi jam membantu dengan fokus Anda dan juga sesuai hitungan delapan siklus …

Berikut adalah contoh latihan Tabata lagi. Latihan ini terdiri dari Tabata Interval terpisah masing-masing menit. Total latihan akan berlangsung menit. Selalu mulai dengan moderat pemanasan dan pendinginan sesi. Dan jika Anda tidak sudah dalam keadaan baik periksa dengan dokter sebelum mencoba.

Squats

Perhatikan -detik waktu istirahat dalam latihan Tabata adalah penting Notebook Second baik secara fisik maupun mental. Mereka tidak hanya mengizinkan pemulihan parsial mereka juga menyediakan bantuan psikologis. Switching bolak-balik dari bekerja laptop second untuk beristirahat membuat latihan pergi dengan cepat. Plus hal itu memungkinkan Anda untuk melatih di tingkat yang lebih tinggi intensitas yang interval apa semua tentang.

]]> http://jillharry.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/budget-information-from-the-superintendent/ Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:48:58 +0000 jillharry http://jillharry.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/budget-information-from-the-superintendent/

The following was sent out yesterday from the Superintendent’s office to all school employees and parent teacher group representatives:

Yesterday, Mark Taylor, California’s Legislative Analyst released his department’s fiscal forecast for the remainder of the current fiscal year and next year.

“Our forecast of California’s General Fund revenues and expenditures shows that the state must address a General Fund budget problem of $20.7 billion between now and the time the legislature enacts a 2010-11 state budget plan.” The projected deficit consists of a $6.3 billion projected deficit for 2009-10 and a $14.4 billion gap between projected revenues and spending in 2010-11. The complete report can be found on the Legislative Analyst’s Office web site.

At this evening’s Board meeting our Unaudited Actuals will be presented, which detail our calculations of actual revenue and expenditures for the 2008-09 school year. The State has made numerous changes to school funding, both during the 2008-09 school year and two months after the fiscal year ended (adjustments to the 2008-09 fiscal year were made in August 2009). Due to these changes, we experienced a higher than expected ending fund balance, as did all California school districts.

The attached article is taken from a three part series from School Services of California. It is being forwarded to you to provide factual information, as it is critical to putting our current budget status in perspective. Please contact my office if you would like a copy of the entire three part series.

During the coming weeks as we move into developing our First Interim Report, and we learn what the State has in store for school finding for the current and next school year, we may once again be confronted with a significant loss of State revenue. It is and will continue to be our mission to work collaboratively with all of our employee groups to avoid loss or our valuable staff and programs.

The Frequently Asked Question page on our web site is sorted by topic (general, budget, personnel, necessary small schools and archived FAQ’s).  These FAQs contain a wealth of answers to a variety of issues of interest.  Please take a moment to look them over.

As always, please contact me if you have questions.

Please forward this article to other interested parties in Mariposa.

Thanks,

Randy

Randy Panietz, Superintendent
P.O. Box 85082 Old Hwy. N.
Mariposa, CA 95338Office # (209) 742-0250
Cell# (209) 456-4867

—-

Putting the 2008-09 Ending Balance in Perspective (This article is a condensed and edited version of a three part article from School Service of California.)

MCUSD is closing out its books for 2008-09. For MCUSD, like most school districts (SDs) in California, there is a sizeable jump in its ending balance. This is not a windfall or a reversal of fortunes, but rather a result of the timing of the state budget; a few one-time, state-approved accounting changes known as “sweeps” and “flexibility;” the late 2008-09 receipt of State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (SFSF); and required, multi-year fiscal planning.

Timing: In its May Revision of the governor’s draft 2008-09 budget, the state legislature had warned school districts to expect a reduction in revenue limit funding. Revenue limit is the funding model used by the state in which a per-student dollar amount is multiplied by a district’s average daily attendance (ADA). In light of this announcement, MCUSD, like most every other SD, began to scale back and implement cuts to address this anticipated revenue reduction for 2008-09. However, the 2008-09 revised budget was not ultimately passed until August 2009, which was too late to impose the reduction for the 2008-09 school year. As a result, the legislature voted to impose the reductions in the 2009-10 budget year rather than in 2008-09. In other words, the expected loss of approximately $500,000 for 2008-09 did not materialize in that budget year, but was pushed forward to affect this (2009-10) school year. The result is a revenue limit funding reduction of approximately $465,623 which is the result of an increase to the deficit factor from 17.967% to 18.355% ( Meaning, out of $100 promised we actually get $81.64) and a one-time reduction of $250 per ADA for the 2009-10 budget year.  Because MCUSD had prudently planned for the reduction in and for 2008-09, the district’s ending balance for that year reflects an inflated amount—it includes revenue limit funds that were not expected to be there. Those funds are not “extra” monies, however. They are needed to fund the 2009-10 school year when the budget is updated at First Interim. The state will implement these reductions by releasing smaller monthly apportionments to MCUSD.

Sweeps and flexibility: At the end of the 2008-09 school year SDs were allowed to sweep the ending balances (unspent money) of many state categorical (restricted) programs and redirect those funds where needed elsewhere. This was done with the expectation that it could help SDs weather the economic crisis for the next several years. Additionally, the state temporarily eliminated more than 40 categorical programs, allowing those monies to be allocated, at the Board’s discretion, “for any educational purpose.” The state implemented this as another tool to support fiscal solvency in SDs. MCUSD operates 20 such programs. MCUSD’s Board of Trustees voted to take these steps, and these funds are also reflected in MCUSD’s 2008-09 unrestricted ending balance. From an accounting standpoint this means that funds which had been on the restricted side of the budget are now on the unrestricted side.

State Fiscal Stabilization Funds: The federal stimulus package, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, provided the state of California with funding for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF). MCUSD applied for and was granted federal SFSF funding, which was received late in the 2008-09 budget year. As such, MCUSD, like most SDs, ended up carrying over a significant amount into 2009-10. These are one-time funds with specific spending guidelines that are also reflected in the ending balance. These funds are intended to implement school reform and improvement efforts, while also saving and creating jobs. These one-time resources are to be spent in ways most likely to improve results for students, long-term gains and school system capacity. Districts are required to submit a quarterly expenditure report to ensure accountability.

Cash flow, deficit spending, and multi-year budget projections: The state is expected to make additional cuts to funding mid-year and to continue to delay payments to educational agencies. Furthermore, it is expected to take the state several years to restore lost funding to education. In addition, most of MCUSD’s unrestricted general fund 82.4% supports personnel costs. Typically these costs rise every year, due in part to salary and health benefit increases that deservingly come with years of service. Given these factors, MCUSD, like many SDs, slowed down spending and made cuts to build 2008-09 reserves. This was done in order to make required multi-year budget projections that show economic solvency for the current and two successive school years, plus ensure enough cash on hand (cash flow) to meet payroll needs, and other expenditures. Even so, the MCUSD, current year, 2009-10 budget reflects deficit spending (more expenses than income), which cannot continue indefinitely. Moreover, experts warn that seemingly high 2008-09 ending fund balances are unlikely to carry SDs through the next few years. Careful budget management is imperative.

MCUSD continues to investigate other cost saving measures, with a committee now formed to study the option of implementing a four-day school week and another soon forming to investigate school consolidation if it becomes a financial necessity.

The financial challenges facing SDs throughout the state will undoubtedly continue for the next few years. And while MCUSD’s budget reduction efforts in 08-09 have resulted in an ending balance that will help to address the 09-10 funding reductions, careful multi-year budget planning will continue to be a crucial element to the district’s ongoing success.