Hi, Mike! You make some valid points, but I will note that the lack of maintenance has been years in the making. Anyone who watches the promotional video seeing corroded and leaky pipes, leaky roofs, etc. would clealy know that these problems are due to lack of regular maintenance. This is self-evident, and doesn't require years of living in Westlake to figure out. For decades now, the Board has failed to properly maintain school property; they have not been proper stewards of that property.

That is why I think that a new Board is necessary, one that will property maintain the school property, and not give all the money away in raises that far exceed what the private sector is getting.

Hi, Dave! If you want to vote for candidates who have made the Westlake teacher's in the three percent of the highest paid in the state, and given them typical pay raises of more than 7.5% annually, then by all means, vote for the incumbents.

But with tenure and seniority based layoffs, those high salaries are not ensuring that we have the best teachers. Once in place, we basically are stuck with them no matter how good that they are. We are prohibited by contract from using high salaries to attract better candidates to replace existing teachers who may be improvements. So my opinion is that these high salaries are NOT necessarily useful in attracting good teachers. Besides, salaries only need to be competitive, not the top in the state, to attract good candidates!

Besides, your evidence supports your opposite conclusion. If there are over a thousand applicants for a job in Westlake, that tells me either that there are many unemployed teachers, or that our salaries are enticing too many to consider moving here. In either case, it proves that our salaries are excessive given the current teacher market.

And we DO NOT have A+ schools. We have not earned a "with distinction" rating for years. There are many schools rated above Westlake. Thus, those top salaries are not paying off with top 3% results.

Hi, Tom! Westlake pays its teachers at rates that put it into the top 3% of Ohio. 84% of the schools in Ohio pay teachers an average of $60,000 or less. And Westlake pays its teachers more than most of the surrounding districts. So yes, Westlake is paying its teachers far in excess of Ohio market rates. And yes, that includes a comparision of excellent rated districts.

Furthermore, raises of 7.5% per year or more is far, far in excess of what we in the private sector have been given.

And I definitely think that the board needs to take a hard-line in negotiations with the union. The unioins bring in expertes from outside of the community to negotiate for them, and the union always takes a hard line. We deserve no less from teh board.

Hi again, Joe. As mentioned above, Westlake is way at the top in teacher salaries, but it is NOT way at the top in performance. Westlake has not earned excellence with distinction for years. Furthermore, the superintendent has admitted that we have much improvement to make. Parkside fifth graders do NOT have good scores, and the high school has many "not met" standards. And yes, the district has cut teachers and busing, along with other staff, to avoid going broke. If cutting high school busing is your idea of a well-run school, then by all means vote for the current board!

The WTA just voted to discuss concessions, too. I guess they are doing that because of the great financial condition of the district, and out of the goodness of their hearts? Somehow, I don't think so! And the Ohio cuts represent only a small fraction of the Westlake budget. The state is going broke, too! Those cuts are swampted by the annual growth represented primarily by teachers raises.

The fact that the school disctrict needs help and improvement is the reason that I am running for the Board. Westlake isn't alone, most districts are facing the piper. The taxpayers need to ensure that their money is being wisely spent. That is my pledge.

What exactly is your definition of bankrupt? The School District Forecast that was handed out in July, 2011 shows the district will be running a 3.4 million dollar deficit for FY2012. It also shows that the District's reserve account will be totally depleted (and then some) by FY2015. Unless something changes this district IS headed toward bankruptcy.

You diminish the professionalism of teachers by insinuating that the only reason they would want to work, or remain, in Westlake is if we keep raising salaries. People choose careers for a variety of reasons, not all of which are money. Just like people choose to move to communities for many reasons, not all of which have to do with the school district. We all want well paid, excellent teachers for our children. But the current Board has propagated the notion that you have to focus on raising teacher salaries over everything else. Considering the current Board's track record, how can we believe that they will properly maintain the new facilities that are being built? Isn't providing a clean, safe environment just as important for our kids as making sure the teachers are well compensated? There is only so much money in the budget and there has to be a balance. This Board does not see that.

Hi, Joe! Your suggestion that I sit back and enjoy Westlake while the current Board spends the system into bankruptcy is not appreciated. Do you really think that I have nothing better to do than run for a difficult office with few perks and lots of work? No, the reason that I am running is because Westlake cannot continue to spend on salaries that are at the top 3% in the state of Ohio. Somebody needs to step in before it is too late. Obviously, relying on the current Board won't work, as they got us into this position.

You ask what would be a reasonable salary for teachers. How about salaries just above the state average of $57,000 (yes, Westlake's average salaries are more than $13,000 above the state averages)? Or how about matching the average salary of similar districts at $65,000? Saving an average of $5,000 per teachers, with 177 teachers, represents an annual savings of $8.8 million dollars, which could push out a levy by a number of years. This is not misinformation, Joe, these are facts that you can see at votebodi.com

There are reasonable alternatives to being among the highess in the entire state of Ohio, Joe! I plan on exploring them as a board member who represents ALL of the taxpayers of Westlake, and who promises to watch their money like a hawk!

Hi, Chris! Whether or not you consider my positions "vicious", my website contains dozens of links to the facts supporting those positions. All my statements are based on facts, not politics. The other side has no such facts, they rely on attacks, anecdotes, and slogans. What you need is somebody who knows the facts and is willing to work to solve the problems, and not abdicate the management and policy making responsibilities of the Board to the administration.

I am an engineer, and attorney, and a mathematician, and I have been involved in the management of a number of companies and organizatoins. I know how to motivate teams, and I know how to attack bureaucracies. I will stand up to the special interests that prefer the status quo, and take a stand to protect the Westlake taxpayer from the demands of the well organized unions. I have the experience, the drive, the motivation, and the background to help fix the problems in Westlake, rather than hiding behind platitudes. These are missing from the current leadership, and if you vote for them, you will just get more of the same.

Thanks, David. You are correct that the administration has admitted that maintenance is not the top priority. When personnel costs rise as fast as they have in Westlaks, such that the city now falls in the top 3% of average teacher salaries, it is no wonder that we cannot afford to maintain our buildings, and have to go to the taxpayer for even more money. This growth in salaries must be stopped, and stopped soon. No district can afford annualy raises of 7.5% forever.

Joe, buildings are not muscle cars. With proper maintenance and care, buildings can last for much longer than the age of Westlake's schools.

I don't think that anybody would be against expanding schools where necessary to accommodate growth and technological advances. But tearing down buildings because of years of neglect because the problems have gotten so bad that they cost more to fix than replace, is unforgivable. Simple maintenance would have prevented most of these problems, and then we could have gotten away with much less in tax dollars to merely add on to the schools, rather than tear them down.

David, you are correct that the Westlake enrollment has basically been flat, at around 4,000 students. The projections do not expect much growth in the future. So there is no excuse for personnel expenses to continue to grow at the astronomical rate that they have been. And as you point out, the district must maintain its buildings. After all, they are owned by the citizens of Westlake, and they deserve proper care.

I also understand that in some cases, disrepair may have led to so much deterioration that replacement may be the only option. All the more reason to be upset with the School Boards that allowed this to occur.

Hi again, Joe! Sorry that I am not responding fast enough for your tastes. I have been busy collecting facts about the District and updating my website, rather than respond to these unsubstantiated opinions that are not based in fact. Go ahead and ask away, I will answer any reasonable question that you may pose. But please, stick with the facts.

If you consider it "politics" to point out the outrageous raises that were "negotiated" by current members of the school board, to point out that Westlake spends more than most districts in per-pupil expendatures (top 6% in the state), that it's teachers salaries are also at the top of the state (top 3%), then I say that we need even more "politics". But the truth is that these are just facts that the majority on the Board wants to avoid, becuase they have created these problems. We need new blood to solve them. That is why the citizens of Westlake should vote for me.

Hi, David. You are correct that under the Ohio Sunshine law, the minutes are supposed to accurately reflect what occurs at the meetings, which has basically required a nearly verbatim recordation of the meeting. This is not occurring in Westlake, and is but another example of the Board failing in its public duties. This is one area where I will require a correction when I am on the board. It is not difficult to get a verbatim transcript, and the citizens, most of whom cannot attend Board meetings regularly, deserve no less.

Chris, have you been to a Board meeting lately? There is plenty of attack politics going on right now. If you are really happy with the schools, then you should want to preserve them in good shape. At the current rate of increase, the district will be in the red about 2014. This projection came from the administration itself, it's not somtehing that I "invented". That will NOT serve to preserve educational excellence.

If you really do care about the schools, you need to look at the fiscal situation in an objective manner, and then decide whether you want the Board that got us into this mess to be the one to attempt to dig us out. My only "political ambitioin" is to fix this problem before it's too late.

Hello Joe. Go ahead and point out any errors on my site, and I will be happy to correct them if you have any factual basis for such a correction. As of yet, you have not provided any, other than the minor error in number of teachers laid off (about 40 personnel were laid off, only 17 of which were teachers), which I have since corrected.

Regarding "deplorable" that's your word, not mine. Regarding a fair wage, my belief is that fair wages should be based on the market, not some artificial target. Wages also depend on what the district can afford, and Westlake can no longer afford to be in the top 3% in the state of Ohio.

What is a fair wage for a teacher in a school district that is ranked excellent since the start of the ODE report card? Hmmm, do parents and taxpayers play a role in the rating of the school district? What about the students themselves, does their dedication which is instilled primarily at home play a role? A better question would be what is an excellent teacher worth? or an average teacher? or a poor teacher? In all cases, it is the same because the teachers union and a weak board decided that it should be that way. A merit based incentive program or merit based raises will actually answer that question. Excellent teacher would get the largest raises and become the highest paid (similar to the real world), average teachers would get smaller raises, and poor teachers would be lucky to keep their jobs in the short term. If they don't improve, then replace them with individuals that are better. Who wins in that scenario: STUDENTS, parents, taxpayers, even teachers win. But why use logic and a system that has worked in every other industry on the planet when the taxpayers can be burdened with paying everyone the same and hope for the best.
Joe, John, or whatever your name is, why is transparency good for everyone but you?

Thanks, Audrey. I do think that I can bring some needed skills and experience to the school board. Currently, my plate is full with running for the Board and my career, so volunteering at this time is not an option (being on the school board is pretty much a volunteer position anyway, considering the hours spent to prepare in addition to the meetings). I do need some time to spend with my family. My wife Holly, however, already volunteers in the district.

Want to see evidence of a lack of maintenance? Check out the video at the link below. Most of the deterioration that is shown in the video is due to seriously deficient maintenance. Simply fixing problems before they accumulate and do damage would have avoided the need to completely replace buildings. Replace a building because of leaky roofs? Really?? But regardless, tell me how they could educate children for years in such an environment? It's disgusting. An example of your tax dollars NOT being put to work where they should. Even Keenan has admitted that he did not have the money he wanted to maintain the schools, so get your own facts straight, please.

http://www.westlake.k12.oh.us/Facilities/clips/

I think that Dave is referring to my "scowl" when we were looking for our son, Andrew, at halftime. He was supposed to be back by then so that we could leave for Annabelle's bedtime. Yes, I tend to scowl when Andrew has not followed through on instructions. Dave, how about you deal with school district facts, rather than dreaming up far-fetched fantasies based on pure conjecture? Your imagination is a bit over zealous.

Hi, Jim! Personnel costs make up 86% of the district budget. Professional salaries are in the TOP 3% in the entire state of Ohio. If one wants to be fiscally responsible, one must addresss these issues head on. It is an insult to good teachers to imply that they will only want to teach in Westlake if we pay them more than other comparible districts.

Furthermore, regarding demographics, my household earnings number is accurate for an overview of Westlake. Remember, all demographics vote, so don't insult lower income households by saying that they don't count. Furthermore, you miss the point. The $70,000 teacher income is for ONE wage earner, the household income numbers include ALL household wage earners. Thus, the average teacher household will earn much more than the $70,000 if their spouse's wages are taken into account, and thus teacher households will earn far more than the average in Westlake. It is a valid point to make.

Finally, regarding job sharing, I note that the problem is not just the costs (for every 2 teachers put on job sharing, the district must fill a full day with either another teacher, or a substitute, and adding personnel adds costs). The other issue is the management nightmare that such a "right" makes for the district. Imagine such a "right" in private industry, where employees can demand half-time basically at will. That is no way to run a business, and it is no way to run a district either.

-Bob

Hmmm...I think the number should be one...the person the school board and Dr. Keenan want to hire. You could drop the salary schedule to minimum wage and you could still get a sizable candidate pool. The size of the candidate pool does not necessarily indicate a competitive salary structure. People will apply for positions in multiple school systems. The key is to have a benefit offering that ensures talent can be hired into the system. I must have failed in making my point. I don't profess to be an expert on salary contracts and unions, nor am I criticizing Mr. Bodi for stressing the importance of managing a budget. What does concern me is that the basis for Mr. Bodi's platform appears to be a string of facts cobbled together and, in my opinion, are misleading. Comparing an average teacher salary to average household income is not an appropriate comparison. Dismissing the contract as being filled with 'legalese' and calling out a flexible work arrangement as costly yet failing to mention a provision in said contract that limits the cost of the arrangement is misleading. It makes perfect sense to ensure the next negotiated union contract is appropriate for our budget and fits the current employment market. To jeopardize talent and subsequent education quality based on loose interpretation of facts and figures is unacceptable.

Hi again, Tom! First, I discussed the swamp behing Hilliard that my kids deal with on a daily basis, not the drenched field behind Parkside. And no, I don't think that we need a levy to solve these problems, just a Board that is interested in doing so. Regardless of whether a permit would be required or not, these problems should be fixed, as they reflect poorly on our district and on our community. Get the damn permit, if needed. I don't want to hear more excuses for these problems, I want to hear solutions.

-Bob

Bob - thank you for your response. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as getting a permit. To get a permit, the applicant must submit surveying and engineering reports, as well as a designation of an equalivant area that will be converted to wetland. Then comes the fun part - actually converting the current wetland area to a non-wetland area and converting the non-wetland area into a wetland area. Even if we just focus on one school, such as Hilliard, the expense will be astronomic. I don't know how much the expense is but I suspect that it will be more than the people of Westlake would be willing to pay. We would definitely need to pass a levy or a bond issue to fund such a project.

We live on a wetland and there is nothing that is economically feasible that we can do about it.

Hi, Joe! I'm glad that you think it is funny that we have a mosquito infected swamp behind one of our schools. Personally, I DO NOT think that is funny, and I bet that most parents whose kids have to deal with that on a daily basis don't either.

What I do find funny is how eagerly you make excuses for the failed policies of our current School Board. If this is such a small problem, then why can't they fix it? Besides, Joe, I gave a link in a post above to the disctrict video that shows some of the serious building issues. Why don't you check it out?

Hi Mr. Bodi! Most people would appreciate it if you do not continue to use exaggerative terms like the fields are mosquito infested - not infected and they are a swamp. (1) The fields are not infested (2) they are not a swamp (3) the schools don't run the football leagues that use them, those are either run by the rec dept. or Junior all-stars - its great of the school to let them use the fields, but I don't want my tax dollars dedicated to the schools to go to fixing various fields for outside rec programs. The schools are safe; many have worked to study the facilities. I am not writing to offend because anyone running for office puts themselves out there and you are obviously trying to do what you feel is right and I respect that of anyone. But it’s important to point out that you consistently take partial facts (the fields are very wet- as most fields in NE Ohio) and greatly exaggerate for effect... You do that with a great number of other facts, take them and add a greatly exaggerated twist. The strategy of posting facts and developing your own context and then checking later is frustrating for those wanting to hear what can be done. It sounds like a plan to do something was put in place after reviewing the same facts you are point to and it involved a lot of people and then had to be approved by the community.

Hello, Raymond! I don't know if you've been behind Hilliard this summer, but there is indeed a swamp. We are not talkgin about some mud after the rain, but standing water the entire summer. And standing water means mosquito breeding. I know. I have the bites to prove it.

The fact that the school's fields are used by the Rec department does not matter to me. The Schools must maintain their property, and this is not being done. Don't forget that this property is owned by the taxpayers, and must be taken care of. I can appreciate that you want to preserve your tax dollars; I do too. But it is just as important to take care of district property, in particular where the health and safety of our children are at stake.

I certainly DO NOT expect that we need yet another levy to take care of this property. If the Board were better stewards of the taxpayer money, they would be able to take care of the property. Instead, they insist on driving profeesional salaries into the top in the state, which I do not think is necessary to attract good employees. A little more fiscal responsibility in personnel costs would allow the district to take care of its property without demanding excessive taxes.

By the way, the only "plan" that the current Board put out there involved more taxes, as in last year's bond levy, and its part II scheduled for the future. Thus, if you don't want to spend your taxes on this as you state, you missed the fact that you already are.

NEW RECORD PRECIPITATION SET TODAY!
TODAY'S RAIN: 1.40"/CURRENT 2011 Precipitation Total: 53.9"/ OLD RECORD: 53.83 (1990)
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/forecast/todays_forecast/forecast%3A-rain-is-likely-wednesday

And it is still raining! Good chance Hilliard will have some puddles.

Record precipitation + Saturated Soil = Standing Water

I think you are talking about the fields that are fenced in for construction and that's where the construction is set to take place. Have you taken a moment to check?

As the saying goes "never let the facts stand in the way of a good story". I would love to see the minutes from all these audiences with Dr. Keenan. (Must be #3 on speed dial). Shame on you Mays, Winters, and Rocco for not diverting monies to fix up a former football field. Oh wait........that would be inappropriate according to Lord Bodi. But hey wait a second, my children have played on both fields....let me think...........Nope, I can't remember thinking I was sitting in Beirut. Oh well, let's not let the facts get in the way. It's a terrible thing when you spout off so much malarkey that you start contradicting yourself. I've given up trying to reason with the "salvation slate". Now it's just free entertainment. i just hope those nasty liberals don't try to tax me on it! "Can I get you a spot of tea(party)?" " No, that just leaves a really nasty stain"

So, Jim, why do 97% (actually, 97.4%) of the school districts in Ohio manage to attract teachers by paying them less than Westlake? Are you really trying to say that Westlake could not attract good teachers if it offered, say, average salaries of $60,000 rather than more than $70,000? Salaries averaging $60,000 would still put us in the top 15%.

The idea that the average 2 wage earner teacher household must make more than $100k to afford their mortgages, etc. is just ludicrous.

The whole premise that Westlake is apparently so undesirable a place to teach that we must pay our teaches more than 97% of the other districts pay is an insult to both the community, and the teachers.

Very well stated.

Nobody has suggested the "chainsaw" approach, Jim. It just seems to me that putting Westlake into the top 15%, which pays an average of $60k, rather than paying the average $70k that we do now, is not unreasonable. Tell me why you think that we need to spend so much more for our teachers? Do you really think Westlake is that bad a district to live and work in that we need to pay a substantial premium to attract good teachers? I sure don't!

I am analyzing the situation using the facts, which are there for all to see at votebodi.com. It is those who think that it is OK to pay far more than everybody else to teh extent of driving the district into deficit spending who need a reality check. The Westlake voters are not likely to reward fiscal irrresponsibility. So when the next levy fails, then what? Large numbers of layoffs and cuts in services, that's what. Is that better than making the hard decisions now? Is that serving our community or our children well? Somehow, I don't think so. It's time for new ideas and new leadership on the board. It is time for some real fiscal responsibility.

Duane, you may think that every school district should always have the latest and the greatest. But the taxpayers need a Board that is going to make the hard decisions and tradeoffs, and focus on what is necessary for a good education, not on the latest bells and whistles. Especially when a district has decided to pay its teachers far about average salaries, rather than to properly maintain the buildings.

Your arguments are the ones that are always used to justify new buildings, but all across the state, and the nation, buildings far older than 50 years are regularly maintained and upgraded. Even if it costs half as much to update a school as to build a new one, we must all remember that it is the taxpayer who must foot the bill.

My biggest concern is not that we have decided to rebuild the schools. It is that the taxpayer is tapped out, and now when we will soon need new operating funds, the taxpayer is going to say, "I already gave". They won't care that the money goes into different buckets. They will only care that, yet again, the district wants more money from them. And when they see that Westlake pays its teachers more than 97% of what other districts in Ohio pay, they are not going to say "yes" to yet more taxes. So what we will end up with are new schools with fewer services, less money to maintain them, fewer teachers (and thus much larger class sizes), etc. And somehow, I do not think that will be good for the city or the schools.

So let me understand this, you term items like proper ventilation, services for our special need students, fire protection and the like as "bells and whistles"? Bob, Westlake has ran just fine without your doomsday song and rhetoric. If you fail to see the advantages of newer schools and the massive cost savings associated with energy efficiency, it further shows you lack the skills necessary. You add this to your stated lack of knowledge in previous posts on school funding, retirement systems, and public contracts and it is obvious you are in way over your head. Simply shouting out statistics you pick and choose over is not enough, you need to know the story.....the whole story. When you compare Westlake to other Districts, try to compare them to districts that offer all the same programs and amenities we offer. You should not pick and choose that data also. By the way, I looked real hard and can't find anywhere on your site that Westlake has Aa1 credit.

Duane, the question isn't whether I don't see advantages in new school buildings. Of course there are such advantages. But when one is spending the money provided by others (i.e., the taxpayers) one must analyze whether the benefits are worth the costs.

You seem to fail to grasp that the taxpayers are not a bottomless pit. At some point, they are going to say "enough is enough". Every dollar you squeeze out of the taxpayer and spent on one item is a dollar that cannot be spent on something else. You and your side have made a big deal about the distinction between bond levies and operating levies, but the taxpayer is not going to be so discriminating. He knows that no matter how you characterize it, it means paying more in taxes. And at some point, the taxpayer will be tapped out.

Every dollar that is going to rebuild schools is a dollar that cannot be used for something else (including teachers salaries). The fact that you want to put them in one bucket or the other is not relevant to the taxpayer. They all represent increased taxes.

The Board and the voters decided to spend money on new schools, but they were not told about the financial problems coming down the road. Thus, when the next levy is put on the ballot, and the taxpayer says "I already gave the other year", then hard decisions must be made. This Board has made all the easy decisions. It has not shown that it can make the hard ones.

Let's not muddy the water here Bob. The simple question is "are the savings from new buildings coupled with the educational and environmental benefits worth spending the monies"? The rational answer is yes especially when coupled with the enormous operating and maintenance costs associated with buildings built in this era. I pay taxes just like you Bob and understand fully the limit that I can withstand. I also have particular expertise in facility operations on this scale and see the ENORMOUS benefits to build now, while we can, in this market, at this price.

Every dollar spent on patch and go maintenance and sent up the smoke stack in inefficient heating systems also can not be spent in a classroom. You appear to have no grasp of this concept, maybe because it fails your agenda criteria.

Lastly Bob, be honest here. I have spoke about bond and operating levies because at a candidates meet and greet you could not explain the difference. How can you ask me to trust you with district finances when you don'y t know even this basic information. Be glad you haven't been crucified for your lack of knowledge on special education programming. I trust you have been inside a school building in Westlake?

Duane, enough already. I certainly know the difference between operating levies and bond issues. I have more financial analysis at my website at VoteBodi.com than any other candidate, so don't accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about. I do, and the financial situation is dire.

Hi, Beth. In the near future, the Board will have no choice but to put a new levy on the ballot. The alternative is not acceptable: massive layoffs and cuts in service. However, my plan is that BEFORE we put such a levy on the ballot, the Board have a plan in place to cut costs, so that the taxpayer can feel that the Board will be fiscally responsible with their money. Only then do I think that the taxpayer will support a new levy in this tough economy.

You note that there was no operating levy since 2006. True, but there was a tax increase just last year for the bond levy. The average taxpayer wil not care what bucket you put the tax increase in. They will just see another tax increase.

In 2012 a new teachers contract will be negotiated. No more sweetheart deals to please the unions. It is time for the Board to ensure that salaries and benefits are in line with market rates, not far above as is currently the case (we pay more than 97% of all Ohio districts, a rate that is just NOT NECESSARY to attract good teachers). Even the teachers know that their salaries are out of line with the acceptable, as they have voted to negotiate concessions with the current Board.

My concern is that absent some real belt tightening, the taxpayers will not approve any new levy, and drastic cuts will be necessary. If we want to avoid that, we must show the voters that we are spending their money wisely.

"We must show the voters that we are spending their money wisely." A very true statement, Mr. Bodi. Fortunately, we (meaning the current Board) have shown the voters that we are spending their money wisely. Moody's and Standard & Poor's recognize the district's excellent credit rating and sound financial status, thanks, in part, to the stewardship of Board President Tom Mays, Board Vice President Carol Winter, and District Treasurer Mark Pepera. (I didn't see you at the Board meeting last night but during the comment section, someone stood up and basically accused the administration of manipulating or controlling the financial markets so that they can report over a $571,000 in savings as a result of re-financing construction bonds shortly before the election. If only Mr. Pepera had such power . . .) Moody's and Standard & Poor's are staffed by economists, some of whom have expertise in public finance. As someone who is not an economist - nor do I pretend to be one, I'll take their opinion about the district's finances any day over the opinion of a patent attorney.

Hi, Tom! I guess you missed it when Moody's and S&P rated the mortgage derivatives as top rated, just before the entire industry tanked.

I am getting a bit peeved at people who cite various ratings for uses other than what they are actually for. Bond ratings do not rate the financial status of a school district, vis a vis how efficiently and wisely the district is spending its money. A bond rating is a tool for bond investors to determine their relative risk in investing in a community. Furthermore, considering the number of school districts that a rating agency must rate, their depth of analysis is pretty low. They care about only a few things, like whether the district has a cash balance (Westlake does, rapidly being depleted), whether the property base can support additional tax levies (Westlake has real estate well above average in value, and thus levies can raise substantial sums of money), and whether a community is likely to allow a district to go into default (not likely in Westlake). Absent these items, the rating agency can't care less about whether the district is paying far above market rates in salaries. And they have no way of predicting whether taxpayers are fed up with new taxes, and thus not likely to vote for tax increases.

In essence, Westlake is entering very troubled times due to the mismanagement of finances by the current Board, and absent some serious belt-tightening, we are in for a very rough ride.

Beth,
As expected, Mr. Bodi did not answer your question. Looks like a simple Yes/No question to me. Same as with the public forum where he did not answer the question whether or not he voted yes for new school buildings and would he vote yes for Phase 2. At least Nate Cross has stated publicly he will vote no on everything. http://westlake.patch.com/articles/school-board-divided-over-five-year-financial-forecast

Joe, this is your problem. It is NOT a simple yes or no answer. Putting a levy on the ballot without voter support is a waste of time and money (ballot issues cost the district money). But of course, you don't care about realistically attacking the problem. You just want to attack the messenger of bad news: the district is in trouble, financially.

Kasich is talking about average salaries in the state. Clearly, he cannot address specifically what teachers are making in every district. Westlake salaries are about $14,000 more than the state average. Westlake is going broke, and must get costs under control. Merely focusing on benefits will not solve the problem, as salaries are a much bigger percentage of the budget.

Wow!, did I really say "why did no one jump...". Getting late...sorry Mrs.Mercer (English teacher).

Duane, $84M divided by 4,000 students is $21,000 per student. And that doesn't count phase 2. That is a lot to pay to reduce a $2600 expense, is it not?

Thanks for doing this additional research. It is very enlightening.

I quote from an earlier entry from Mr. Bodi....

'I am getting a bit peeved at people who cite various ratings for uses other than what they are actually for.'

After perusing Mr. Bodi's website, I find the irony of that quote staggering.

Joe, in private industry we have no problem identifying good performing employees and poor performing employees. In any school, every student, parent, teacher, and principle knows who is good and who is not. We all knew when we went to school who were the good teachers and who were not. It is not rocket science to determine who deserves to be rewarded, and who deserves to be replaced. no need for miracles, just some common sense and the ability to actually implement performance pay. That's all we need.

And the ideal that just because Westlake is rated excellent that all its teachers are excellent is foolish, Joe. There is much room for improvement.

Mr. Bodi,
Once again you are dancing.
How do you plan to define this merit pay system? Please give an example of how a teacher will be paid on merit. Feel free to use any subject area and grade level. After all, if elected you very well may have to develop this model. Kasich has not. What is your plan?

I'll tell you how, Sam. When Westlake salaries are driven up to the top 3% in the entire state, when salaries will eat up 100% of revenues just next year, when the Board has failed to even poll the community to see if they would support a new tax increase, when the Board must lay off 17 teachers and cut high school busing, when even the teachers agree that maybe it is time to consider concessions,that is when we can honestly say that the Board has failed to provide sufficient fiscal discipline.

The fact that they stretched out this levy so long is a testament to the fact that they asked for far more than they needed in 2006 (after running a scare campaign subsequent to the failure of the levy in 2005). They had such large cash balances that, rather than properly maintain the schools, they decided to support their union backers with large raises (averaging about 7% a year for 4 years).

Those are EXACTLY the cuts that EVERY district makes first to save money and keep in class services for the children at the same level.

You and I both know busing isn't about HS kids who can drive to school not being able to ride the bus it's about the private school kids that Westlake is required to bus for free that is the real issue here. Don't you agree that in tough financial times that this is a perk that should go because it has ZERO impact in the classroom?

I agree that personel costs are the largest part of ANY school districts budget. The workforce also has multiple college degrees. Your stated $10,000 hatchet job on the teachers raises roughly $3,000,000. Where is the rest going to come from without a levy? You cant expect to balance the budget on the backs of the teachers because the numbers just don't add up.

Pay to play sports, school fees, buildings closing right at 4:00. I'm I correct that you would support these since they do not impact the in classroom experience for the children?

Saying that the 2006 levy was for raises for the teachers instead of maintaining the buildings is just a lie. You didn't live in Westlake back then so you missed seeing that money going towards the MASSIVE technology upgrade that happened in every building during that time. That is where that money went NOT the teachers contract that didn't start until 2009....the same contract that increased their healthcare costs

So tell me Sam, do the parents of the children in private schools not pay taxes, too? And you want to take away from them the little that they get for their money? Really?

And you are correct, the busing is among the first services to be cut. And then teacher layoffs. And then more service cuts and more layoffs. All because the district has chosen to pay salaries higher than 97% of the state. Do you think that is a valid tradeoff? And what happens when the taxpayer decides that enough is enough, and refuses to pass any levies until costs are under control? This is already happening in Brecksville, along other districts. And it will happen here in Westlake, too, if we don't get costs under control.

Your proposed $10,000 paycut would only raise about $3,000,000. So where are the other savings going to come from?

Asking, make that demanding, that teachers take an average 14% paycut doesn't solve the problem. The math doesn't add up. There has to be more

Even with a paycut or pay freeze more teacher layoffs would have to happen without a levy. There is no way getting around it.

Yes private school parents do pay taxes they could also choose to send their kids to the Westlake schools and get free transportation k-8. If times are tough and we are in fiscal crisis then they should be tough times for everybody......shared sacrifice.....right?

Are you really that new to Westlake that you think the average Westlake citizen compares Westlake to Brecksville and Strongsville? It's all about how we compare to River and Bay and to a lesser degree Avon and Avon Lake. Avon Lake passed 2 levies in 2009

Sam, "only $3 million" savings? Since when does saving $3 million fall into the category of the trivial? This is exactly the reason such problems exist. A few million here, a few million there, and only then we are talking about real money?

And regarding your argument that these are "EXACTLY the cuts that EVERY district makes first to save money" I agree, and I see it has to end. What they do is that they cut the services that will cause pain to the children and the parents, in order to force them to support and approve a new tax levy. Rather than trimming salaries to be more consistent with the market (doing that would irritate their supporters, the unions), they will cut services and threaten more cuts, to demand even more money, which they will then use to again reward their special interest supporters (e.g., the unions).

I say that this cycle has got to stop, and I will work toward that goal, whether I get on the Board or not.

Be careful, Joe. It's those kind of personal questions that persuade some people to not run for public office. One of my bright line rules of politics is: "A candidate's minor children are always off limits." That goes for Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, and Robert Bodi. I disagree with much of Mr. Bodi's politics, but let's leave his children out of it. The next candidate to whom that kind of question is directed might be a candidate with whose politics you agree. Or then again, maybe that person will decide not to run at all because he or she does not want to have his or her parenting choices vetted by political opponents.

Joe, the reason that you hear more about the taxpayer than children from me, is because the taxpayer is ultimately in control of the money in the district. If the school board does not prove to the taxpayer that it is spending the taxpayer money responsibly, then the taxpayer will withhold future money, and the schools will suffer. And you forget that the parents who send their children to private schools, the couples who have chosen not to have children, retitrees whose children have grown and moved out, and unmarried households are all taxpayers too. Do they not deserve a voice as well? They all contribute their taxes to the district, and they ALL deserve to be heard. I am out speaking for them. None of them want to harm Westlake schools, and all support educational excellence. But they think that it should be done in a fiscally sound manner, and I happen to agree with them. So am I for the children? Of course I am. But I am smart enough to know that it is the children who will suffer if the district mismanages its finances and the taxpayer decides that enough is enough. We must stop that from happening, and the only way to do that is to get the financial situation under control. That will help the children more than anything.

From what I hear you saying, Tom, is that the only people who should have a voice are those with children in the district. That I cannot agree with. The entire community gets a voice, and that is how it should be.

Bob - I think your last paragraph was meant to be directed to Mr. Smith, not me. My point was that political candidates should not have to justify their parental choices. Where a candidate sends his or her kids to school has absolutely no bearing on my voting decisions.

Duane, have you even read the teachers' contract? I have. From start to end, all 107 pages. And regarding the issues, from your posts, I think that you need to look into a mirror to see the person who really does not understand the issues.

Of coures, it has never been about the issues to you. It has all been about protecting the status quo, of avoiding making the hard choices, and shooting the messenger. I think that the citizens of Westlake are a lot smarter than you give them credit for, Duane.

David, David, David.........I never attacked you in any post. Pointing out your inconsistencies and your attempts to attach adult behavior to children's behavior was ridiculous at best.
You are correct in that Mays had a child graduate outside the district. I'm still trying to connect the dots on why that is important, outside of grasping at straws. To be clear, this is much different than Sullivan who OBVIOUSLY had motives outside of Westlake PUBLIC schools. It also bears noting that when you choose to send your child to a non public school, there is cost to the public school district,which is okay based on your taxes paid.

I think the word you're looking for is sarcastic, not hypocritical. I have based my comments on facts that are easily obtainable. I do not hide my feelings in this election. There is a group of candidates that are hell bent on destroying this district to satisfy their political beliefs. I am equally as committed to preserving the major reason I moved to Westlake. Thus I voted already for Mays - Winter - Falcone.

Duane, this is both redundant and pathetic. Using profanity in a public building is sad and pathetic. Most decent parents would not permit their children to behave in this manner. It is even more pathetic that you feel this is "attaching" adult behavior to children. If you genuinely feel the opposite is true, I weep for the future of any child that you come into contact with on any level.
Your quote "I do reaffirm my belief that they are indeed hell bent on destroying the schools" is yet another pathetic quote. They include three people with degrees of masters level or higher and have children in the district. One graduated multiple children from the district, another has a child in the district, and my wife has one child in the district, another will be in the district, and both she and I graduated from the district (which is more than can be said of you).
Far as your ridiculous analogy of "pruning a cherry tree with a chainsaw" shows your complete lack of knowledge on our current situation. I watched several students riding their bicycles to school from Crocker Park today. That is only 2-3 miles for these kids. We cannot afford busing but have no issue with paying our staff in the top 3% of the state.
Far as charter schools or any other private schooling is concerned, these parents pay taxes for the schools are you actually stating they should get nothing in return for their money?

Daune (continued), I have read much of what you have written and not one word has been positive or defensive of the three individuals that you seem to hate so very much.
I am in no way a supporter of Tom Mays or Carol Winter; however, I have defended their position to send their children to whatever school they feel will best educate them.
You on the other hand will praise one side for engaging in activities that you would condemn on the other side.
You have either stated or implied that Mr. Bodi has an agenda and a political stance. Mr. Mays did not receive the GOP endorsement and immediately requested one from the Democrats. This request was not mentioned in a SunNews article. It was also not mentioned that "Video" Vern Long, the chairman of the Westlake Dem. club was also a former teacher. His nickname "Video" Vern was obtained by his over-reliance on videos in his classroom. "Video" Vern attempted to give Tom an endorsement and refuses to give one to Mrs. Gettings. Again I am not a supporter of Mrs. Gettings, but I do find her to be a very respectful and intelligent woman. If Westlake votes for her it would be nice that a moderate voice is appreciated in this city. It is pathetic that Vern did not support a real Democrat and instead attempts to promote the RINO, Tom Mays (republican in name only).

I believe in competition, Joe. Westlake schools can only be made stronger and better if the citizens have a choice to send their children somewhere else if their local schools fail them. But as your numbers point out, charter schools have had little impact on Westlake, so I consider this a non-issue.

You feel that Westlake Schools losing $323,127 to fund charter schools has little impact on our schools and tax payers? You feel that MILLIONS more that flow from schools ranked Excellent or Excellent with Distinction has little impact?

At what point do you feel the Westlake tax payers should be concerned that their tax dollars are funding charter schools and not their local district? What is the magic dollar amount lost by Westlake that would spark your concern? $500K, 1 Million, 10 Million?