March 24, 2008

  Dear Parents:  

 I am writing to you regarding the annual Take Your Daughter and Son to Work Day that is scheduled for Thursday, April 24, 2008.  In Arizona many businesses have adopted an alternative date in June which does not impact classroom instruction.   We are asking you to have your children attend school on April 24. In the past, many of our students have gone to work with their parents leaving few children in attendance at school. It becomes very difficult for our teachers to provide meaningful activities with so many children absent.

While the Deer Valley Unified School District values career exploration for its students and encourages family activities, we are asking that you send your child to school and take part in any activities that your business organization may have scheduled in June.   Because the district is neither sponsoring nor endorsing this event as an instructional day, children who are not in attendance at school will be marked absent in accordance with our daily attendance procedures.   We encourage you to take your child to work at a time when it does not impact their educational development. Stakes have never been higher for student achievement. It is vital that we maximize classroom learning.

Thank you for your support.  

Sincerely, Virginia B. McElyea, Ed.D. Superintendent    

An open letter to:

Sandra Dowling, Ed.D.

Virginia McElyea,Ed.D.

Richard J. Marshall MBA

22348 N. 70 th Drive

Glendale, AZ 85310

Rmarsh3571@aol.com

It is with great dismay that I read your proposal for a $148,000,000 bond issuance.  But before I get to my critique of the proposal some salient and contemporary statements are in order:

• The home foreclosure rate is the highest since the great depression.
• New home permits in the west valley are at a 17 year low.
• Migration from other states has declined 34 percent in the past year.
• Population growth rate dropped 2.7 % between 2006 and 2007.
• The $2.6 trillion market for city and state bonds has been all but frozen since the collapse of Lehman Brothers on September 15.
• Maricopa County Assessor shows 18% decrease in Full Cash Values for 2009.
• County unemployment rate at 4.9 vs. 3.1 in August 2007.
• Maricopa County pre-foreclosures 7,000.
• Foreclosures and REO 17,000.
• Foreclosures are a problem for almost every neighborhood in the valley. The problem has trickled in and will to get worse as people lose jobs in this economy.
• Maricopa foreclosure rate increases 35 % in August.
• One out of every 723 homes in Maricopa County is in foreclosure.

Now against this dismal economic background that the US and Arizona, and in more particular, the County of Maricopa finds itself I will attempt to analyze the bond proposal.

"The bonds will be used to supplement the state monies we expect to receive for new school construction over the next six years" Oh really?  Where do you think these funds will come from?  They are not likely to come from normal tax revenues when the economy is contracting and they are not likely to come from State bond issuance when rates are increasing and business is slowing.

As I am sure you are fully aware Arizona real estate taxes are composed of valuations for Full Cash Value and Limited value.  The Full Cash Value is used in the determination of how much taxes are due on Secondary taxes, such as those for special districts, fire districts, SCHOOL DISTRICTS... If the County Assessor has determined that the basis for funding (Full cash Value) has shrunk by 18% where do you think the required bond amortizations funds will come from? In other words the pie has shrunk and this proposal wants a share of what is left.  Are these bonds more important than fire districts, special districts, previous bond issues, I do not think so!

The schedule on page 11of the Informational Pamphlet indicates an amortization schedule for debt servicing that is wholly UNREALISTIC.

It would appear that the assumptions underlying the forecasts that went into the establishment of this proposal are seriously flawed.  It appears that most of the assumptions were based on 2005 projections that have now proven to be wildly optimistic.

The proper thing for any responsible manager to do is to withdraw the proposal until it is redrawn in light of the current economic climate.

With the current foreclosure rate rapidly increasing and the unemployment rate rising it is in my opinion that it is irresponsible to move forward.

What must be realized is with every home that goes into foreclosure, fewer taxes will be collected and every job that is lost will contribute to the adverse condition.

In the final analysis we MUST learn to live within our means.  Sure it is nice to build new facilities and renovate existing one, but if that represents an additional tax burden on an already tenuous condition that is not in the best interest of those that you are supposed to be serving.

I fully realize you may have a different point of view, therefore I ask that you view it in the perspective of your own budget.  You may want to purchase an expensive article; however you realize that it would put a severe strain on an already extended budget.  What would you do?  Go ahead and be irresponsible and purchase the article or wait until circumstances are better?

My last and final commentary, who has paid for all the signs that suggest one, should vote for the bond issuance?

If any district funds have been used to purchase and distribute the signs I feel it is it is a violation of the public trust and should be reimbursed by the supporters of the motion.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Marshall