Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of The Reporter, its publisher or its staff. You can submit your own Letter to the Editor by email to News@ReadTheReporter.com. Please include your phone number and city of residence. The Reporter will publish one letter per person per week.
Dear Editor:
As the citizens of Carmel are likely aware, Carmel Clay Schools (CCS) is requesting that the Operating Referendum currently in place at a rate of $0.19 per $100 of assessed value be renewed in November.
Current in Carmel’s May 16th article on this issue states: “According to CCS, the operating referendum currently produces approximately $25 million per year, most of which is used to cover teacher salaries and benefits.”
However, upon further investigation, this does not appear to be true.
The Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) provides a finance dashboard where information is provided on School Corporation’s revenues and expenditures on a line-item basis. The link to this information can be found here: IDOE | EdData (in.gov)
Users must click on “Descriptive Listing by Fund and Account,” find Carmel Clay Schools (3060) in the School Corporation drop down box and select 2022 as the year. Upon reviewing this information for 2022, a vast majority of teacher salaries and benefits are covered within the Education Fund on Page 1 of the report, which is funded by the State of Indiana.
Regarding the Operating Referendum that begins on Page 2, CCS received just over $24M in revenues in 2022. Its expenses came from three principal areas: Instruction (~$4.8M), Support Services (~$18.3M), and Community Services (~$2.1M). Notable expenses unrelated to teacher salaries and benefits contained within the Operating Referendum include Maintenance of Buildings (~$8.1M), Legal Services (~$275k), Office of the Superintendent (~$480k), Office of the Business Manager (~$451k), Receiving and Distributing Funds (~$210k), Payroll Services (~$128k), Financial Accounting (~$337k), Other Support Services – Central (~$1.4M), Insurance (~$510k), Community Services – Other (~$228k), Community Relations (~$68k).
The above expenses are half of the expenses listed underneath the Operating Referendum. As such, it does not appear that “most of the Operating Referendum covers teacher salaries and benefits,” does it?
Are these line-item expenses necessary for CCS operations? They probably are. However, perhaps these items should find a home in their proper place, such as the Debt Fund or the Operating Fund, not in the Operating Referendum. Perhaps CCS should be more truthful about how they are using the Operating Referendum.
Finally, is it potentially true that, according to CCS, “Without the referendum, the district could be forced to cut up to 20 percent of its teaching positions”? Yes, it could be. However, another alternative would be for CCS to tighten its belt in other areas so that many of these line items currently funded by the Operating Referendum could be absorbed, thereby either eliminating the need for an Operating Referendum or significantly lowering the rate that CCS is requesting. This would also take the concern over the firing of teachers off the table.
I strongly encourage CCS to be more open, transparent, and truthful with its constituents if they want the best chance at the Operating Referendum passing in the Fall.
Jon DeBoer
Carmel
Another disappointing analysis from the resident that offers negativity and criticism without solutions. EVERY. TIME. Jon, did you stop to think how the school would be forced to cope with losses? People are the first to go because of the terrible laws we have in this country around paying debts. At least there are no suspect statistics here. Citizens of Carmel – you are already paying these fees. We have top notch schools that support our property values and thriving communities. Please listen to the people that have been running them for years and support the status quo.
https://www.onezonechamber.com/onezone-chamber-endorses-carmel-clay-schools-referendum/?fbclid=IwAR24HDEP_dIVbpSDDUtElbCLbyTursL0VuBuMiRtD1UCT71hA-HXcfNleZE_aem_ARvPwz5oawnuSah4kBRi7wNcWvB9CTNSN8AD7FswMPxBsZn-Wg9IAu2LuDBT5QJEyn8&mibextid=Zxz2cZ
Thank you for this surface review of complex data. With inflation affecting everyone, even the schools, where do does the writer suggest the district “tighten it’s belt”? Maybe they can just stop paying on debt? Or not pay it’s attorneys? Certainly they could stop responding to every ignorant parent’s FOIA request so staff can better use their time serving students (I’m sure the government would let it slide, understanding that we’re just “tightening our belts”).
It would be helpful if readers attended school board meetings to fully understand the budget (presented in full at every meeting), and limitations of “moving money around” beforing offering advice on complex subjects that they have no experience with.
Dear Margaret, Sarah and Amal:
I would be “helpful” if rather than making “surface level”, “disappointing” and snarky comments in an apparent attempt to impugn credibility, the three of you would choose to engage in a fact-based discussion. To this point, you have either ignored or missed the most basic fact that I raised – CCS’ claim that “most of the Operating Referendum is being used to cover teacher salaries and benefits” is patently false. Pending further verification, it appears that only ~20-30% of the Operating Referendum in fact does so.
I encourage you to dig into reports such as the one linked above or Indiana’s Dollars to the Classroom report that also sheds quite a bit of light on how CCS spends its $200M+ annual budget. Should you choose to do so, you may be enlightened to see that beyond the solutions I have suggested (that readers dig in and CCS be more truthful and transparent), there are plenty of line items that warrant scrutiny prior to taking CCS at its word and voting in favor of renewing the Operating Referendum. The three of you are certainly free to vote “yes” in the absence of digging into the additional factual detail as I suggest. However, I believe that being a responsible taxpayer and community member warrants understanding the details so that a more transparent, truthful and productive conversation can occur ahead of the vote in November.
To answer your “objections” – one does not need to attend school board meetings to “fully understand” budget. As you well know, these meetings are recorded and said recordings are provided at a later date and time for review. Further, there are additional sources, such as the ones I’ve referenced above, that also provide a great amount of unbiased line-item detail as to CCS revenues and expenditures. Many of these line items necessitate further scrutiny as to whether or not there can be “belt-tightening”. As just one example, Non-Operational Professional Services have grown from $163,936 in 2018 to $3,577,554 in 2021 (that’s more than the cost of inflation and is worth some scrutiny). With regard to “moving money around”, CCS has indeed stated on their website that each of the 5 funds have a purpose and cannot be “co-mingled.” However, page 5 of the IDOE report has several line items listed as “transfers from one fund to another” or “loans from one fund to another.” But alas, my point was not about moving money around. It was about locating $8.1M expenditures such as Maintenance of Buildings in the Operating Fund where CCS states on their website that they belong, as opposed to in the Operating Referendum that CCS claims mostly pays for teacher salaries and benefits.
Because this forum isn’t conducive to back-and-forth discussion, this will be my last comment to any of the three of you here as I merely wanted to address your “concerns”. I invite you to dig into additional sources of reputable information beyond the CCS website, social media accounts and school board meetings.
Thanks Jon for pointing out the “advertised” use of the referendum funds vs how the money is actually allocated. It’s baffling how we as fiscal conservatives are quick to question how our federal taxes are spent but quickly justify local tax spending.
I too have been a resident of Carmel for over 30 years and fully support our school system and other city projects. However, I see nothing wrong with questioning how “our” tax dollars are spent. It’s amazing to me how the spending line items outlined in the referendum get approved as they clearly fall under Operating expenses which makes one question what’s in that spending fund?
Thank you for this post- you pose many questions and the lack of transparency by CCS is certainly frustrating. We have lived in Carmel for nearly 30 years, this is the third request to renew the Operating Referendum, every 7 or so years CCS will ask for its renewal and dangle the threat of losing teacher positions.
Until CCS figures out how to spend within their means, the tax payers will continue to fund an Operating Referendum.
Let’s also keep in mind Carmel residents are also funding a Safety Referendum. We are one of a few school districts in Indiana where tax payers are funding 2 referendums.
Please keep us posted Jon, we would like to know Superintendent Beresford’s response.
I appreciate the deep dive by the author, and I hope all Carmel residents will do their due diligence before heading to the voting booth.
Since our property assessments recently increased substantially, thus creating an increase in tax revenue, won’t the schools then see an increase in their revenue from our property taxes?
I can appreciate wanting more money for education, but repeatedly coming to taxpayers asking to support referendums seems fiscally irresponsible. Certainly there are ways to tighten the budget without cutting teachers.
We often tell our kids that money issues are not due to an income problem, but rather a spending problem.
Jon, I appreciate your neutral presentation of facts. I have paid taxes in Carmel for 36 years and have never felt that I had a voice in how CCS spends my money. I am deeply concerned by what appears to be a less-than-fully-honest plea from CSS for more money. Of particular note is the increase in non-operational professional services from 164k to 3.5 million in just three years. I would like to know what these services cover.
The referendum should include a line-item description of how each dollar will be spent so that citizens can decide before voting if they wish to support the referendum. Unless CCS provides more explicit information, I will vote NO on the referendum.
Thank you for your factual letter. I will be digging into the IDOE finance dashboard.
Julie Link
Hi Chris, Ann, Diane and Julie:
Thank you for your responses and for recognizing what I am attempting to do here, which is to shed some light on the lack of truth and transparency from CCS as we move towards a vote on the Operating Referendum. I believe that they owe us, as taxpayers, more honestly and detail as it relates to how they are spending the money they continue to receive and request from us. While I value CCS educational staff and the hard work and effort that they put in every single day, I do not yet accept that teacher positions will be cut until CCS shows us why and how that is the case.
Above, I referenced the Indiana Dollars to the Classroom report, which is linked below. After clicking the link, one would need to click on the “Statewide Expenditure Report by Object” box in the upper left, then find CCS in the drop down box for Corp Name. Of particular note, CCS expenditures have risen from over $187M in 2018 to $218M in 2021, a 16.6% increase, whereas inflation during that time was 4.92%. There are many line items contained within that have recently become significant expenditures or that have significantly increased over the last few years. These certainly warrant an operational definition and explanation from CCS as to why this is the case.
https://datavizpublic.in.gov/views/DollarstotheClassroom2020-2021/DollarstotheClassroom?%3AshowAppBanner=false&%3Adisplay_count=n&%3AshowVizHome=n&%3Aorigin=viz_share_link&%3Atoolbar=n&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&%3Aembed=y
I am confused as to how expenses like payroll services, accounting services, fund distribution, insurance, legal representation, and a business manager are “unrelated to teacher salaries and benefits” as the letter writer claims. That is patently untrue: Indeed, those seem essential to the process of ensuring teachers actually get paid and can navigate their benefits.
Additionally, the letter writer is assuming that other funds with generic names like “General Services—Other” are unrelated to teacher pay and benefits. That does not seem to be a good faith assumption, and certainly not something one should broadcast without consulting CCS officials for verification or explanation.
If we add back in all the funds that are likely related to teacher pay and benefits, we get closer to two thirds of the Operating Referendum that are *directly* linked to teacher pay and benefits.
I am disappointed that this letter writer, without actually doing due diligence and asking Roger McMichaels or Superintendent Beresford for clarification on any of this information, is jumping to the least charitable conclusions possible.
Our students, teachers, schools, and community deserve far better than disingenuous presentations of partial information designed to undermine taxpayer confidence in our premiere public institutions.
Hi Diane,
Thanks for your comments and concerns above. Unfortunately, it appears as though you’ve missed the points I’ve made and the facts I’ve provided. I’m not certain if your misunderstanding is genuine or intentional, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain below.
To address your first objection, perhaps “unrelated to teacher salaries and benefits” was poor word choice, however, none of the other readers failed to understand my point, which follows. CCS has claimed that “most” of the Operating Referendum is used to “cover teacher salaries and benefits”. NONE of the line items that you listed in your first paragraph such as payroll services, accounting services, fund distribution, insurance, legal representation, and a business manager ARE (as opposed to related to) teacher salaries and benefits. Therefore, “most” of the Operating Referendum does not pay for teacher salaries and benefits as CCS claims, which is the point here.
I made that point clear in my LTE via the paragraph that followed by stating: “The above expenses are half of the expenses listed underneath the Operating Referendum. As such, it does not appear that ‘most of the Operating Referendum covers teacher salaries and benefits,’ does it” – but apparently you missed that.
Further, with regard to your concern over my “assumptions” in your second paragraph, you quote me as referencing a category “General Services – Other.” However, if you go back and re-read my initial letter and comments above, I do not use that category in any of my statements. As such, it would be helpful if you’d accurately quote me before attempting to impugn whether or not I am acting in good faith.
With regard to your third paragraph, again, you are playing semantics. CCS has stated that “most” of the Operating Referendum is used to cover “teacher salaries and benefits” (not that these costs are related or unrelated, but that they cover that exact line item). Teacher salaries and benefits are in fact largely covered on page 1 of the IDOE report, under the Education Fund, under the “Instruction” category 10000, which I noted in my LTE but you apparently missed. Putting your use of semantics aside, I find it ironic that you criticize me for assuming that line items are unrelated to teacher salaries and benefits. Yet, your statement “If we add back in all the funds that are LIKELY related to teacher pay and benefits…” does exactly that – makes assumptions about what expenses are or are not related to teacher salaries and benefits. Seems like a double standard to me!
However, even if we are generous with regard to our accounting and include expenditure account line items from the Operating Referendum that fall under “Instructional” (teaching) but do not directly cover teacher salaries and benefits such “School Library” or “Athletic Coaches”, we still only come to a total of $10.8M, which is less than half of the Operating Referendum and certainly not “most” of it.
Finally, your criticism of me in your final 2 paragraphs is quite ironic given the level of detail and accuracy I have provided relative to what you write above. I’ve deliberately used phrases such as “it appears”, “pending further verification”, and “perhaps” to be “charitable” towards CCS in my criticism. As I’ve encouraged others to do, I also encourage you to focus on the facts and refrain from attempting to impugn credibility nor motive to make your points.
This is very enlightening! Thank you for this thorough analysis. I’m shocked that in 2017 the referendum brought in $14.5M and currently brings in $25M! That’s a HUGE increase and many times over the rate of inflation. I’m thrilled so many commenters on the thread are asking questions, pulling from the data on IDOE website. Some commenters want others to stifle their questions and condescendingly chastise them for choosing inquiry over ignorance, or by making accusations of being “disingenuous”, which really is in poor taste. I support the public’s ability to ask questions, receive answers, do their due diligence in looking at the reports, and corroborating information. This is so important for public representation and for holding elected officials accountable to their sworn duties to use taxpayer money wisely. I’m not sure how this all ties in, however, at the last board meeting they voted to incur $40k of additional expense to add a logo to the soccer field. This type of spending seems excessive when they keep asking for more and more from the taxpayers. The CCS website also states that a referendum allows the tax bill to go over the property tax cap, so the public may be surprised at their bill if they assume the cap is in effect. If the operating referendum is anything like the safety referendum, quietly bringing in DEI coordination, “diversity hires”, and other controversial policies and practices, we should all be EXTREMELY careful at the ballot box this fall.
Jon – Thanks for the in-depth research. Although I’ve never taken the time to look so closely at CCS’ spending, I have always felt that Carmel Clay Schools have spent an excessive amount of money on non-academic endeavors. Now that I see where some of the funds are going, I will be more cognizant of the messaging that CCS provides to the public regarding the renewal of the Operating Referendum. I do remember 7 years ago, after the last operating referendum went into effect, our kids elementary school put in a new playground and bought new cafeteria tables. At the time I didn’t think CCS would spend monies that were promoted to go to teacher’s salaries on items like playgrounds and cafeteria tables. This time I’ll think twice.
Correction to the sentence in my above comment:
“Of particular note, CCS expenditures have risen from over $187M in 2018 to $218M in 2021, a 16.6% increase, whereas inflation during that time was 12.48%”
Finding accurate data on inflation has been difficult.
Dear Jon,
You seem to have misunderstood my comment. Let me reiterate, as clearly as I can:
1. Why did you choose *not* to ask Roger McMichael or Dr. Beresford for explanation or clarification on any of this before announcing to the community that CCS is misrepresenting the Referendum? They are both quite accessible, and eager to talk about these details with engaged community members. I encourage everyone who has questions about this to contact CCS’s community relations director at 317-844-9961.
2. Do you really think that CCS is misrepresenting the Referendum by saying it will “cover teacher pay and benefits” rather than “it will cover teacher pay and benefits and all associated costs?” Really? To see something sinister in the innocuous streamlining of a quite obvious corollary says more about you than it does about CCS.
3. Why do you hold yourself to such a low standard of precision, information, and effort while asking so much of everyone else?
You take issue with my saying that *IF* your unfounded and speculative categorization of fund allocations are incorrect that the Referendum would have been up to 2/3 directly related to teacher pay and benefits. That is factually correct: You simply have not done the research to be making the claims you’ve made. The difference is that YOU chose to announce your speculations to the public, while I am just offering an alternate possibility should your baseless assumptions prove incorrect. The onus of proof is on you, and you chose not to seek it. Yet again, I must ask: Why not?
Carmel voters are smart; I am sure they’ll see through this perfidious presentation. But I need to ask you to do better, for the sake of the schools and the community that relies on them.
Your neighbor,
Diane
Hi Jon. Your letter with such factual information is greatly appreciated and I hope that Carmel voters will take note. It is wonderful to live in a world class city with amazing schools, however the spending all around has gotten out of hand. It is sad to see the school administrators use teachers as their shield for continuing to spend outside of budget on so many things. The board meetings I have attended and watched online often include Mr. McMichaels giving a statement about how things are now over bid, etc. I understand that cost of materials, etc has risen due to inflation, but this seems to be a pattern. It was also completely shocking to hear at last month’s school board meeting that the board voted 4-1 to spend $40,000 to put a logo on the soccer/lax field. I think that taxpayers need to take a hard look into the finances of CCS before voting on the referendum in November.
Hi Diane:
I understand you quite well. You would prefer to continue to unsuccessfully attack character and credibility rather than discuss the facts, offering nothing new above as it relates to the facts.
You continue to argue and base your position on the phrase “directly related to teacher salaries and benefits” as opposed to the factually accurate direct quote from CCS: “cover teacher salaries and benefits” which is an argument I will not engage in.
What is most ironic is that you expect me to “clarify” with CCS, when you do nothing of the sort with those who hold different views than your own. Instead, your history depicts that you resort to writing personal attacks that are fraught with assumptions and accusations.
As a citizen of this community, I am free to express my views just as you are. However, when the chips fall where they may, I am quite confident that the approach I take is much more respectful, truthful, comprehensive and consistent than that of yours and is appreciated as demonstrated by the comments here.
Feel free to have the last word – I will not respond to you any longer given your approach.
Cheers,
Jon
I was at an Orchard Park Elementary meeting where Superintendent Beresford was asked questions. Did it care for him at all.
We spent too much money on extracurricular activities. Just spend it on education.
Grew up here and besides my days in collage have lived here since the 1960’s.
Can the amount per 100 dollars of assessed value be reduced since our values have in some cases doubled since the last request for money? That seems to be a very reasonable solution if the district is truly spending within its means. 24 million in extra cash seems excessive, especially since the district can’t really tell us specifically where it’s going – I’m sorry, but “classroom expenditures” isn’t specific enough. And some of the money is also used for outplacement of kids according to the most recent Current article I agree with the school board member who pointed out if the district has the cash, they will spend it even if not needed. Can they cut the rate to maybe 10 cents per 100 to give taxpayers a break. There are enough residents annoyed their tax rate has increased so much just because home values went up so it will only hurt to not be proactive and recognize this sentiment is real. Asking for the same rate without very specific details on allocation may be the death of this next request. I don’t know how of if the rate can be reduced, but this seems like a good compromise in light of all the questions. I know I’d have more confidence in voting yes. And I thought HSE just did that as well, reduced the allocation.