Six seek two school board seats

Julie Feasel is a horrible board member. Time and again she has been caught not knowing the cost impacts of large spending items that she votes on. This board--with Feasel as its president--is a trainwreck. Fire Feasel, replace Meider with someone sensible and we'll finally have a school board that provides the oversight and accountabillity that our district desperately needs. Unless things change significantly--and the school board drives this--we will become like South-Western in 10 to 15 years.

I plan to vote for Siefring and Grubbe. Unlike the other candidates, they care enough to have attended board meetings for the last several years, and regularly participate in public session. These are two thoughtful and caring residents who have solid ideas and propose solutions, and have the resolve to demand that our district run a tighter ship.

Ever see her in action?? She seems to be confused in meetings especially on school financial matters and finds it difficult to separate her Board position when voting on her husbands golf stipiend. Me thinks she is just a puppet with Dimon pulling all the strings and providing her sound bites and instructions. Dimon probably winds her up for every meeting only to have her wind up mechanism run out before the meeting is over. We need to replace Julie Feasel with someone who believes that they actually have an accountability to the taxpayers. The majority of current members seem to think they are only a rubber stamp for whomever is in the Superintendents position. We are deserving someone who is not going to be a whatever Ward wants Ward gets type of School Board Member. We need someone who going to look out 5 or 10 years and tell the truth to the taxpayers as to how much their tax bills are going to go up if the current rate of teachers and administrators pay increases continue. Vote for anybody but Julie Wagner Feasel.

Her heart is in the right place, but unfortunately she's lost her mind and an understanding of her responsibilities as a board member. The current board works and acts as if they serve the district and not the district tax payers.

I too will be voting for Grubbe and Siefring. Their common sense approach and willingness to publicly address tough issues are what this district needs to exceed our current levels of performance. Additionally, I'm certain they will clean up the current conflicts of interest and less than transparent actions of the current board.

To help an undecided voter ...

What do you see as the "tough issues" and what district expenses concern you?

Facts, not mud slinging.

Just Wondering...a couple observations to chew on!

1) Refusal to debate issues and allow minority members to add agenda items for discussion. A violation of Board Policies.

2) No policy regarding Nepotism. 2 BOE members' spouses have been hired or received multiple additional stipends/jobs since the were appointed/elected. Feasel actually voted YES for her husband's last stipend. Board minutes were altered by the Treasurer/Records Officer to cover it up until it was noted in public session last week. Now they are in a pickle and will try to un-vote and re-vote. Problem is..it happened!

3) They alter reality to achieve their objectives. The last levy was not needed for 1 more year. The shortage of $2mil was a ruse as they ended the year with over $2 mil in the bank. They make threats to parents...force a positive levy vote.
Now, funding from the state is down, and they are not making cuts, or pay adjustments to offset the funding...they just dip into the piggy bank and cover everything...so they can ask for more money!
4) Administration raises and Superintendent's contract amount of 1.3mil came as a surprise to Feasel/Meider/McFerson/Gallowa y. Shouldn't they know and understand financial dealings before they vote on them? They don't consider the 25% tax increase their constituents started paying this year, when making decisions...they just look at the balance in the checking account.
5)According the Ohio board of Regents, remediation rates for OLSD high school grads is over 30%....that's a big problem.

All CURRENT MEMBERS are afraid of him. He thinks money grows on trees just like at Nationwide. Spend it now we can worry about new money later, just as long as the Administrators are happy.Don't worry if anyone challenges us we wilL just ENLIST all of the TEACHERS UNION FOLKS TO SHOW UP AT THE MEETINGS AND YELL AND SHOUT DOWN ANYONE WHO SUGGESTS FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY.DIMON THE FREE LUNCH IS GONE. OSU ENDED YOUR TENURE YOU SHOULD DO THE SAME WITH THE OLENTANGY SCHOOL BOARD. YOU ARE A DINOSAUR IN A NEW ERA.

Just Wondering:
The board repeatedly votes on wasteful spending, and tries to muzzle the board member who raises these red flags. Would you support the following:
Thousands spent on administrator retreats including canoe trips?$3,000 dinner at La Tavola restaurant in Powell.
$111,000 in reimbursements to employees for mileage in 2008. That's the mileage equivalent of 4.5 times around the world.
$3,000 apiece to six administrators (all of whom making $100K+) as "weather watchers" to report on road conditions for school closings (all other districts consult ODoT, or common sense)
$300,000 annually in "summer stipends" for guidance counselors and librarians to assign students to their teachers and stock shelves. Last I checked this was part of their job description.
$165,000 in bonuses to construction companies and other contractors for "early completion" of schools--when they are planned more than two years in advance, and construction of these "cookie cutter" buildings is down to a science (can't they just bump the completion date to when they want to begin moving material in?). When asked about this at the last board meeting the head of facilities could not tie these payouts to a dollar benefit to the district, but instead offered that it's convenient to teachers to begin moving materials in 30 days in advance and that the bonuses keep the vendors from "infighting". Call it a babysitting tax. These bonuses may total around $2MM in the last ten years since they were begun.
Medicare tax reimbursement and 100% retirement contribution from the taxpayer (25% of salary + Medicare tax):$750,000 annually. We're the only district in the region that offers such lavish benefits.
Approving budgets with known flawed methodologies and known waste; refusal to honor finance committee plea to delay budget vote when hundreds of thousands of dollars were discovered as redundant or erroroneous.
Feasel was awarded the Brick Wall Award by the Society of Professional Journalists for hers and Scott Galloway's abominable, deceptive superintendent search that denied public access to the process and their rigged candidate list. This was the first time a superintendent search in Ohio was done in secret, earning state-wide scorn and making Olentangy a laughing stock.
I could go on, but if you're not disgusted by now you'll never be.

Other districts, state agencies, and private corporations are deferring raises, bonuses, and other forms of compensation during this tough economic situation. Our BoE awarded three raises in eleven months to the Treasurer, in addition to a $2K signing bonus and a 6% Tax Deferred Annuity (roughly $7K). According to Ms. Feasel, the raises were "To catch her up to where she was when she was hired in." That is a direct quote and a clear sign of incoherence and incompetence.

Additionally, the district's standard benefits package now burdens the district tax payer with the following new perks, courtesy of the current board: payment of the 1.45% medicare tax, 6% tax deferred annuities, and stipends that far exceed the actual costs of what they are intended to cover ($900 a month for car and cell phone for example), plus "pick up on the pick up" for these perks.

After approving Dr. Lucas' contract, a press release was issued by the district understating the first year cost of said contract by 23%. After publicly misstating the dollar value, Ms. Feasel corrected herself at the following board meeting by accurately stating the cost of the contract. The problem is that Ms. Feasel already voted FOR the contract without accurately understanding what she was voting on. Take an error rate of 23% and multiply it by $140M and you can clearly see why we have a $32M financial time bomb on our hands. The bigger issue is that the district never issued a press release to accurately convey the cost of Dr. Lucas' contract.

Recently, the district held an Administrative Offsite Meeting at The Lakes golf course. The Board of Education attended the meeting and had no concern with incurring expense to utilize the Lakes facilities while 23 buildings in the district sat empty. I am willing to bet they had catered lunches at the expense of the tax payer as well, but I do not have proof of that.

Final fact: Ms. Feasel doesn't understand the difference between operating expenses and capital expenses. When questioned about delaying Berkshire Middle School by at least a year to save an estimated $4M, Ms. Feasel remarked that delaying the building by a year only delays incurring the cost but doesn't save the district any money. While that is true for capital expenses, that is clearly not the case for annual operating expenses. If she doesn't understand basic accounting principals, how can she responsibly vote to place operating and bond levies on the ballot?

I rest my factual case.

Vote Siefring - Grubbe wrote:

Just Wondering:
The board repeatedly votes on wasteful spending, and tries to muzzle the board member who raises these red flags. Would you support the following:
Thousands spent on administrator retreats including canoe trips?$3,000 dinner at La Tavola restaurant in Powell.
$111,000 in reimbursements to employees for mileage in 2008. That's the mileage equivalent of 4.5 times around the world.
$3,000 apiece to six administrators (all of whom making $100K+) as "weather watchers" to report on road conditions for school closings (all other districts consult ODoT, or common sense)
$300,000 annually in "summer stipends" for guidance counselors and librarians to assign students to their teachers and stock shelves. Last I checked this was part of their job description.
$165,000 in bonuses to construction companies and other contractors for "early completion" of schools--when they are planned more than two years in advance, and construction of these "cookie cutter" buildings is down to a science (can't they just bump the completion date to when they want to begin moving material in?). When asked about this at the last board meeting the head of facilities could not tie these payouts to a dollar benefit to the district, but instead offered that it's convenient to teachers to begin moving materials in 30 days in advance and that the bonuses keep the vendors from "infighting". Call it a babysitting tax. These bonuses may total around $2MM in the last ten years since they were begun.
Medicare tax reimbursement and 100% retirement contribution from the taxpayer (25% of salary + Medicare tax):$750,000 annually. We're the only district in the region that offers such lavish benefits.
Approving budgets with known flawed methodologies and known waste; refusal to honor finance committee plea to delay budget vote when hundreds of thousands of dollars were discovered as redundant or erroroneous.
Feasel was awarded the Brick Wall Award by the Society of Professional Journalists for hers and Scott Galloway's abominable, deceptive superintendent search that denied public access to the process and their rigged candidate list. This was the first time a superintendent search in Ohio was done in secret, earning state-wide scorn and making Olentangy a laughing stock.
I could go on, but if you're not disgusted by now you'll never be.

The results speak for themselves. Olentangy is one of the best school districts in the state and unlikely to have been met with "state-wide scorn". Given the rant-rave by the supportors of Siefring and Grubbe who, apparently, would rather have OLSD go the route of the (basket-case) Soutwestern City Schools makes me far less inclined to support their candidacy.

Olentangy Voters Beware!
A vote for Grubbe and Siefring is a vote for (wackjob) Jennifer Smith. A Smith-Grubbe-Siefring majority will hijack this district and destroy everything that we have built in the last 10 years.
If you want Olentangy to be Southwestern, by all means keep listening to their vitriol. Otherwise, keep an open mind and learn about each candidate before casting your vote.

Anon wrote:

<quoted text>
The results speak for themselves. Olentangy is one of the best school districts in the state and unlikely to have been met with "state-wide scorn". Given the rant-rave by the supportors of Siefring and Grubbe who, apparently, would rather have OLSD go the route of the (basket-case) Soutwestern City Schools makes me far less inclined to support their candidacy.

It's precisely because Siefring and Grubbe don't want our district to become South-Western that they want to reign in Out-Of-Control spending. It's the Julie Feasels and Scott Galloways on the board who are dragging our district toward failed levies and a failed district.

If it wasn't for the threat of eliminating busing in the last levy campaign it likely would not have passed. The cheerleaders of unsustainability like Anon confuse "high spending" with "high achievement". It's stale thinking like that that will doom this district--not curbing unnecessary and wasteful spending.

So, go ahead Anon--defend your positions to your neighbors while they spend $40 on supplies that they hand over to their kids' teachers and then have to turn around and write a $30 check for yet more supplies. Go ahead--go door-to-door in your neighborhood and defend the kind of crap our board spends money on. I dare you.

So Anon: Our rating climbed while we had no superintendent (to speak of) for the last two years...and the former superintendent was here only 18 months and implemented nothing--only minor tweaks in the reporting of the CIP, but nothing substantive in the way of curriculum. Not his fault--he just wasn't here long enough to have made any impact. And our curriculum hasn't changed, other than adding "Formative/Summative Assessment", which is nothing more than being able to take tests as many times as one wants. So, what do you attribute our increased PI to?

The only variables that have been dynamic are the change in the rating system (adding "Excellent with Distinction" with no increase in attainment criteria; and AYP, which is a "credit" that raises scores artifially) and the massive influx of new students. We have imported talent, not created it--this is simple solution mechanics.

There is nothing in the district record over the last year--two--three that would have resulted in the across-the-board increases.

We have a great district--there is no doubt about it--there's a lot of talent in the classrooms on both sides of the desk, but the administration self aggrandizes over results that it has no bearing on; worse it's done for their own enrichment. The responsibility of the district is now to not stifle the natural abilities that all of these thousands of bright, new students have brought to the district.

Anon and not buying propaganda:
Perhaps you should give me a call and find out where I stand on the issues, rather than publicly opining that Mr. Siefring and I will slash everything and destroy our district. That is the farthest thing from the truth and your postings are deceitful and flat out wrong. Perhaps a review of the definition of propaganda will show that you are the one spreading such, to hurt our candidacy.
Having attended BOE meetings for over 18 months, everything listed in these posts are an accurate representation of where our school tax dollars have been spent.
A vote for me and Mr. Siefring, is not a vote to, "hijack this district and destroy everything that we have built in the last 10 years". Also, a vote for us is not to say we walk goosestep with Mrs. Smith. We believe that asking questions of administrators is a good thing...remember they work for the Board and the Board represents the taxpayers, parents and their children!
Mr. Siefring and I have greater investments in the district that go beyond a 4-year term...it's called 6 children who currently attend OLSD.
We want student achievement beyond OLSD and fiscal transparency/responsibility. There is great opportunity to improve both @ OLSD. We teach honesty, academic and fiscal discipline to our children everyday....I believe it can be done better in our district, especially with an engaged leadership. The district (not unlike Southwestern) has grown quickly and been forced to react...now is the time to prevent potential meltdowns like Southwestern.
A pragmatic, fiscal analysis by the leadership of OLSD will prevent idol threats of sports, band, busing and extra-curricular activities. We need to look at how we spend our money everyday...just like we do in our homes. I prefer to do that prior to holding our fellow community members hostage.
In closing, don't smear Mr. Siefring and myself without knowing the reality of our intentions. Yes, we do have good district....we want to have a great district, that other districts should want to be like, rather than us wanting to be like them. Facts are facts...we plan on sticking to them....you should too!

Smith the "wackjob"--that's a joke. Instead of marginalizing her--like the other members have tried to do (and the Superintendent is frantically trying to do), it is she who has marginalized the board. I heard "fiscally prudent", "efficiency" and "transparency" more than a dozen times in the last meeting and the website has been redone to include initiatives the district is working on to further efficiencies, cost cutting and transparency.

Smith has had far more of an effect on the board than they have had on her.

Actually, P Grubbe, if you read my posting I don't believe that I am smearing either you or Mr. Siefring (All I know about either of you is from the article from which these posts are derived.) My post was intended to convey a distaste for the vitriol, by people purporting to be your supporters, directed toward the OLSD board (except for, of course, Ms. Smith) which (given the performance of the district) I tend to believe has done a good job. I am not going to get caught up on marginal dollar issues (when compared to the amount of revenue the district brings in)- such as $18K for administrators to judge winter road conditions for themselves in 50 square mile district instead of relying on the 8 county, 4000 sq. mile ODOT district 6 for the road conditions - in making judgments on which candidate to support.

It seems, judging by the Suburban News Publications and This Week Columbus reporting on school board matters that Ms. Smith (an individual whose actions I believe would lead us toward a Southwestern-style district) tends to get bogged down on the minutia over an administrator getting a 3% raise. What I care about is: 1) the board taking steps to ensure a class size which is conducive to an excellent learning environment; 2) the board providing the resources for superior class offerings; and 3) the school district being competitive in attracting and retaining talent needed to support a school district that is one of the best in the state - which I think unlikely if school district employees have to deal with a board which views them as adversaries rather than part of the same team.

Since your supporters, based on their postings, appear to be in full support of a more adversarial and acrimonious board environment and also appear to be more fixated on marginal cost control rather school district performance; then I believe some skepticism is in order.(In short - the board members can go to La Scala all they want, so long as they produce a school district which gives my kids a great education, keeps them safe, and do not cause my property value to crater – as we have seen in more dysfunctional school districts.)

I look forward to reading future reports on the issues you advocate. I am skeptical on a need for change and wary of an individual who would provide a crucial "second" for Ms. Smith's ill-conceived motions in school board meetings. Consequently, my vote will hinge on whether I believe a candidate will strengthen or weaken Ms. Smith in the time she has remaining for her term.

Let's get an understanding of what accountability each candidate believes the School board has to the voters. WAGNER Feasel and McFerson seem to think their accountability is only to do the business of the administrators. That is like letting the fox run the chicken coop. The current mentality is that of spending all operating levy money if we have it, just a matter of allocation and shifting things around to appear that they are saving money.Bottom line all operating levy money is being spent. They think they can always go back to the voter for more and more. What about seriously dealing with the benefits package , raises, etc which will eventually "bankrupt" the district just like Southwestern if not brought under control.

P Grubbe wrote:

Anon and not buying propaganda:
Perhaps you should give me a call and find out where I stand on the issues, rather than publicly opining that Mr. Siefring and I will slash everything and destroy our district. That is the farthest thing from the truth and your postings are deceitful and flat out wrong. Perhaps a review of the definition of propaganda will show that you are the one spreading such, to hurt our candidacy.
Having attended BOE meetings for over 18 months, everything listed in these posts are an accurate representation of where our school tax dollars have been spent.
A vote for me and Mr. Siefring, is not a vote to, "hijack this district and destroy everything that we have built in the last 10 years". Also, a vote for us is not to say we walk goosestep with Mrs. Smith. We believe that asking questions of administrators is a good thing...remember they work for the Board and the Board represents the taxpayers, parents and their children!
Mr. Siefring and I have greater investments in the district that go beyond a 4-year term...it's called 6 children who currently attend OLSD.
We want student achievement beyond OLSD and fiscal transparency/responsibility. There is great opportunity to improve both @ OLSD. We teach honesty, academic and fiscal discipline to our children everyday....I believe it can be done better in our district, especially with an engaged leadership. The district (not unlike Southwestern) has grown quickly and been forced to react...now is the time to prevent potential meltdowns like Southwestern.
A pragmatic, fiscal analysis by the leadership of OLSD will prevent idol threats of sports, band, busing and extra-curricular activities. We need to look at how we spend our money everyday...just like we do in our homes. I prefer to do that prior to holding our fellow community members hostage.
In closing, don't smear Mr. Siefring and myself without knowing the reality of our intentions. Yes, we do have good district....we want to have a great district, that other districts should want to be like, rather than us wanting to be like them. Facts are facts...we plan on sticking to them....you should too!

Mr. Grubbe, You will not get my vote, nor will your friend Mr. Siefring, unless I can be convinced that you are not both "rubber stamps" for Ms. Smith's ill-concieved motions and antics in school board meetings.

It is unfortunate that you feel my questioning of the Board and Administration is considered as a "rubber stamp" for Mrs. Smith. If you want to know more about me, I'm in the phone book and would be willing to meet with you.

I agree and disagree with all board members on a variety of issues. Hence, why the governance model that previous boards adopted should be adhered too. All 5 members of this board have 5 opinions and bring separate strengths and issues to the table. Because 2,3 or 4 board members, or the administration may not like the issue is no reason not to have public debate and discussion.

No member of this current board has received a 50% voter mandate, therefore it is imperative that the opinions of all members be considered. There are plenty of issues that may be ill-conceived for some and not others...if the governance model is followed and all BOE members respect where everyone comes from...then I see no need for "antics" by anyone at Board meetings.

I am not, nor will be a "rubber stamp" for any person or agenda. I am an independent thinker and parent of district students who will vote my conscious, what's best for the long term viability of the district and its students, and the will of the voters.

Finally, let me state clearly that name calling and expression of false innuendos by ANY poster or party is unacceptable! We are all educated adults and should be role models for proper debate and not a bunch of playground bullies!

Lets let's stick to the facts and let the electoral process decide the outcome.

Thank you.

We have a very, very good district.

"Marginal costs", which include total non-essential/discretionary spend, that the prior poster dismisses are important to watch because they do add up to millions of dollars, and point to a mindset of loose, or no, controls on large item spending--including salary/benefits.

Within the context of the FYF they are quite large.

The point is not "$3,000 for lunch at LaTavola", but it's emblematic of a mindset in the district of entitlement; that cost is not an object whatsoever--as the prior post insists, and that no one should be weighing cost and benefit. It is encumbent upon the school board to provide leadership and oversight, and I see none in these areas.

It's THAT attitude that brings us incrementally closer to Hilliard, Worthington and South-Western. That Worthington--an excellent district with a history of a strong board and resolute community backing--is failing levies now should be a loud alarm to Olentangy that our own day of reckoning will one day come. Worthington is not a community of "meanies" or "cheapskates". They simply reached a critical point where they realized that the returns on their funding did not justify the large, ever-increasing cost.

Feasel and Galloway gave their support to the Spanish teacher that was teaching illegals how to become "legal" buy getting false social security cards and other forms of ID.. This is the same teacher that Scott Davis with Feasels and Galloways approval gave tenure to to avoid her being dismissed by other members of the board. Dimon McFerson where are you on this one?? Likely you have the same posture on this issue as you have on internet being abused by minors in high school.