McVey said the district has cut $6.5million in spending growth since 2008. That includes $4.5 million after a 9.5-mill levy was rejected that year, resulting in the loss of five administrative positions and 34 teaching jobs.
After voters approved a 6.9-mill levy in November 2008, the district continued to trim anticipated expenses, he said.
After voters approved a 6.9-mill levy in November 2008, the district continued to trim anticipated expenses, he said.
So, let's see if I have this right. They've cut $6.5m. (Something we know is false since spending went up $15.5m.) But $4.5m of that is cuts implemented when the levy failed initially in 2008.
So only $2m in cuts came AFTER the last levy passed?
But wait, there's more!
Didn't the district reinstate the $4.5m in earlier cuts when the levy passed? Wasn't that part of the promise made to the voters if they passed the levy?
So, bottom line is this, if you are still wavering on how to vote: Were they lying then? Or are they lying now? Either way, do you trust them with more of your money?
No comments:
Post a Comment