Testing School Board Candidates' Claims

The Menomonee Falls School Board election is just days away, and it has turned out to be a heated four-candidate race for two open seats on the board.

Based on the candidate forum and campaign literature circulated by School Board hopefuls, a significant amount of debate has centered on Act 10, the teachers contract and the budget. It’s also become clear that what is supposed to be a nonpartisan race .

In an effort to bring the most information before voters head to the polls on Tuesday, Menomonee Falls Patch reviewed various claims made in campaign literature and websites of all four candidates: Richard Houdek, Paul Tadda, Michele Divelbiss and incumbent David Noshay. Patch attempted to determine the validity of some of the key statements by talking to district officials and reviewing prior reporting of some of the issues.

The factual statements made on Noshay's website were determined to be true. And Divelbiss' website contained almost entirely a list of goals she plans to achieve, if elected.

However, some of the claims made by Houdek and Tadda are being called into question. Here are take on the validity of those claims.

Tadda: Act 10 will lower taxes

One of Paul Tadda’s goals stated on his campaign flyer was to “lower taxes with implementation of Governor Walker’s Budget Repair Bill/ Act 10.”

According to the district, this claim is false. The primary component of district funding is based upon revenue limits set by the state, which are computed based on the rate of inflation, each district’s prior year controlled revenue and enrollment changes. The revenue limit is the maximum amount of revenue that may be raised through state general aid and local property taxes. Superintendent Patricia Greco said revenue limits typically increase 1 to 1.5 percent annually.

Act 10 implemented tools that allowed districts the flexibility to cut costs by taking steps such as changing insurance carriers, increasing employee co-payments, and limiting the impact of associated agreements. However, Act 10 had no impact on the revenue limit formula — which determines how much districts can tax. Additionally, School Board members have no influence on setting revenue limits. Districts can only increase revenue limits through referendum.

“Nothing with the tools from Act 10 will affect the revenue limit,” Greco said. “To say you can lower the taxes with the repair bill, you can’t.”

In response, Tadda said the district is taking the wrong approach when it looks at the revenue limit. Rather than viewing the limit as a way to tax residents as much as possible, the district should use the cost-saving provisions in Act 10 to actually spend less than what's allowed by law.

"The revenue limit is set by the state. That doesn't mean the district must tax to that level," Tadda said. "If you use Act 10 to find further savings, you could tax lower than the revenue limit. Every year we have this budget crisis, and if we used Act 10 to to create more savings, we could stay ahead of this yearly budget deficit."

For example, he said, increasing the insurance deductible for staff members is one option to explore.

Houdek: District should have switched insurance providers earlier

Houdek claims the district had “siphoned (funds) out of the classroom, all to fund a union to bankroll elections and recalls” by not switching from.

While it’s true the district would have likely saved millions by switching from WEA Trust, which is affiliated with the state teachers union, to Humana decades ago, some things are easier said than done. Before Act 10, all changes to insurance providers needed to be agreed upon at the bargaining table.

If the board and teachers union would have came to an agreement to change insurance carriers, it could have happened. However, the School Board could not unilaterally change insurance carriers without an agreement.

“Other than negotiating through the teachers union, it couldn’t be changed,” said Director of Business Services Jeff Gross.

Gross said the district made several attempts in prior contract negotiations to tweak insurance rates and providers. During the 2007-09 contract negotiations, the district conducted a full-scale insurance committee study. An outside company suggested several options for new insurance providers, but the union and the district failed to reach an agreement.

In 2009-11, the district again proposed different vendors to shift from WEA Trust, but again the union and district failed to reach an agreement.

Finally, in the 2011-13 negotiations, Act 10 loosened the bargaining process, and the district was able to implement the current changes.

Houdek said he understands that bargaining before Act 10 was quite different. However, he said the School Board was too passive in past negotiations when it came to moving away from WEA Trust.

“Through the years, dozens of districts opted out of WEA Trust during the 20-year period we were in it. What was the difference that those school boards had in order to negotiate with teachers?” Houdek asked. “I just feel (the  board) played a passive role. I don’t know if there was that much energy put into it.”

Tadda: District could have avoided layoffs

Tadda claimed that by fully implementing Act 10, the district could avoid sending out a high number of preliminary layoff notices, and eventually laying off employees.

According to the district, this claim is false. Since revenue limits are the driver of school funds, fully implementing Act 10 would have no effect on the budget deficit that is built in as a byproduct of the revenue limit computation formula.

Revenue limits increase roughly 1 to 1.5 percent annually, but energy and transportation costs along with inflation outpace the annual increase. Therefore, each year the district must balance a deficit. As a result, teaching staff is reduced.

Greco said even if the district wasn’t faced with a deficit, layoffs would still be inevitable. If enrollment declines, there is less need for teachers. As a result, staff reductions are necessary.

Tadda said his statement during the forum may have appeared to be a blanket statement about all layoffs. He said he is aware that staffing levels will need to be adjusted to accommodate declining enrollments. However, he said there’s room to prevent layoffs that are a result of declining revenues.

“There are obviously going to be times where staff level needs to match falling enrollment,” Tadda said. “To just cut teachers because of the revenue limit is not telling the complete story. The revenue limit is the maximum you can tax unless you go to the public for referendum. If you lowered those costs, you would have more money to keep teachers on staff.”

For more information about the candidates and their positions, check out .