Letter to the Editor: School Board Priorities Still a Problem

Editor's Note. The following is a letter submitted to the editor. If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, e-mail it to me at stephen.schmidt@patch.com, or post it directly to the site by clicking this link.

School Board Priorities Still a Problem
Phil Hemingway
Iowa City

One step forward, two steps back seems to be how we are going.

At the April 2nd Iowa City School Board meeting the School Board finally approved Superintendent limitations which would require approval for expenditures greater than $25,000. This was recommended by the Synesi group over a year ago. Well better late than never.

Maybe not. It was not put in place soon enough to prevent the mechanic at the Physical Plant from purchasing two E350 vans for $35,533 a piece for a total of $71,066. So it appears that the Physical Plant has greater spending authority than our Superintendent.

And why are we using PPEL (Physical Plant Educational Levy) funds to purchase fleet vehicles but we use the School Foundation to raise money for SmartBoards™ in our classrooms? We are putting a higher priority on Physical Plant employee comfort than educational opportunities for our students. Isn’t that what the District is in the business for in the first place?

If we need SmartBoards™ in our classrooms, spend the PPEL funds now and put them in there. PPEL funds could be used for the overdue addition at Penn, a gymnasium for Tate or for a permanent location for Transitions; things that would affect students every day.

If we need new vehicles for the Physical Plant, let them fund raise – bake sales, frozen pizzas, etc. – or make do with older pieces of equipment. This new paint policy has to end. Physical Plant vehicles need to meet DOT safety standards and get them from the Physical Plant to the schools in a reliable fashion ,period.

It would also be interesting to check how many District vehicles have air conditioning and power windows as compared to classrooms which do not have air conditioning and some classrooms which do not even have windows. Concerning just how ICCSD spends money: the District’s policies of using one vendor for service contracts is as outdated as the rotary telephone. Iowa Code 26.3(1) pertaining to competitive bidding practices for public improvement contracts needs to immediately be applied to the District’s purchasing of service contracts from outside vendors.

Our schools are not established to underwrite the bottom-line of any grounds maintenance company or architectural firm. We should contract with vendors who provide the District with efficient, economical and safe services that meet our needs. The District should maximize dollars in the classroom for our students instead of padding bank accounts. Iowa legislators who talk about getting more money to our schools should take action to close this loophole. Not every School District operates as the ICCSD does. Many have their own Board policies to encourage competition.

Hopefully our Board members will adopt a more progressive policy concerning competitive bidding practices. Who knows, maybe in the future we’ll see signs urging us to donate to the “Ford E350 fund” but these misplaced priorities have to stop.