Re: "No Comment on UGDSB raises"; Thursday, Nov. 20, 2008

On behalf of the staff and students of the Upper Grand District School Board, I feel compelled to respond to the letter published under the above title on your Nov. 20th editorial page, without a signature! As you will see below, I have no problem signing my letter to you, and I hope that you will honour an equal voice and allow me to refute the many errors and inaccuracies in the published letter of Nov. 20th.

First, let's start with the creation of the UGDSB. The amalgamation of the Dufferin and Wellington County Boards, in 1998, was the action of the provincial Harris Tory government. Neither one of the existing Boards wished to be part of this "arranged marriage", but because of everyone's efforts it has turned out to the benefit of our students and staff. Despite the claims of the anonymous writer, Dufferin is not the "poor sister" in this relationship. The Board has and continues to spend millions of dollars in Dufferin County. Look at the list of renovated and new schools in our communities (in Orangeville alone we have renovated Orangeville District SS, Princess Elizabeth PS, Parkinson Centennial PS, Credit Meadows ES, built Island Lake PS and Montgomery Village PS and rebuilt Princess Margaret PS!!). On a per capita basis Dufferin students have fared very well in the scheme of capital investment and renewal.

Now, let's address that ever popular issue of unhappy taxpayers: the salaries paid to public sector senior executives. For a start, let's put this argument into the same context as the private sector. Picture, if you will, a CEO responsible for 72 branch plants (i.e., schools); over 3000 employees (spread across these 72 locations in 4000 sq. km), and having a daily client list of +30,000 individuals (i.e., students) ranging from the age of 3 to 18 years; all the while managing a $300 million budget, under public scrutiny. I challenge anyone to find me a CEO with a comparable job description who would be paid less than our senior staff. I have never heard our CEO or other members of senior staff claim that their jobs are stressful and need a salary increase. As for our school principals, their salaries are well deserved. They are responsible, on a daily basis, for the instruction and safety of hundreds of students and staff, while maintaining a multi-million dollar facility; does anyone want to put a price tag on student safety?

Our anonymous writer wants to complain about the sale of Springbrook; I will admit that this was not a popular decision in Orangeville at the time, but it was and still remains, the right decision. Let's examine the facts: first, there is declining enrolment in Dufferin County; in fact there are empty spaces at PCPS, PEPS and PMPS currently. The provincial government capital funding model (i.e., the funding of new schools and additions), requires empty seats be filled before we can consider building new ones. According to the Long Term Accommodation Plan (LTAP), approved by the Board in February 2008, there is an accommodation review scheduled for Orangeville/Dufferin in 2011. This may be accelerated because of the current French Immersion Review that is underway.

The writer also has to understand that the cost and sale of Springbrook are all dictated by provincial regulation; we have no say in this matter. In fact it makes great sense to me that what we really did was transfer a public asset from one publicly funded body to another. The writer should also acknowledge that Parkinson CPS was renovated and expanded at the time to accommodate the SES students; but now has empty classrooms.

Finally, the Board is not ignoring the residents of the west part of town. First, it is currently negotiating the purchase of a site in that area to accommodate the Settler's Creek students (see below). The plans for a school in that area, which will relieve the pressures at MVPS & East Garafraxa PS, are in the LTAP. It is our hope that we can align all the issues in this area and build a community school as soon as possible.

The anonymous writer's letter alluded to comments about the sale of Board assets in the Orangeville area. Because of declining enrolment in Dufferin County, the Board cannot collect Educational Development Charges from new house construction. Therefore the only way we can acquire new school property to meet our objectives outlined above is from the sale of existing assets. So the Board has undertaken, and is in current negotiations with a purchaser, to sell off several excess pieces of Board property, in order to acquire a Settler's Creek site. We are in the last stages of negotiations and details will be made public as soon as possible. However, it is important to know that the purchaser of the Amelia Str. property is amenable to not developing the property and leaving it as park land; Murray's Mountain is secure and safe!

To any wise business person, especially in this time of tough economics and declining enrollment, the consolida- tion and centralization of resources is good business. The Operations Department, along with all our major departments has undergone an external business operational review. As a result of this review, maintenance staff will be more responsive to schools' needs at a lower cost to the Board (and taxpayer). Maintenance workers have the ability to take their truck to their residence so they can start each day from there. We have had a long standing practice of supervisors being available 24/7 through pagers and cell phones allowing for easy dispatch to problem areas. To claim that the Orangeville office isn't important belies the fact that the writer doesn't understand our core business...student program. The Orangeville office is the centre of this key function to our students' success and will not be closing. In reality, all we're transferring to Guelph is one secretary and the "office" of a supervisor who already lives in Guelph!

Another favourite target of those opposed to public spending is the "main office". For the benefit of our anonymous writer, let me fill in a few details. The existing main Board office at 500 Victoria Road in Guelph was built in the 1970's as a warehouse. It is a windowless and poorly ventilated office building for those who work at the hub of our system...a building long overdue for renovation. Businesses in the private sector would have moved long ago! So, let's start with the cost; the total renovations are being accomplished from administrative dollars only; no student dedicated dollars are being used. The total cost is $4.3 million and all dollars come from administrative allocations and the sale of administrative property (such as the lands just north of 500 Victoria Rd.). In addition, there will be benefits to taxpayer as we are consolidating our staff into one location and not paying rent for other facilities, such as the Silvercreek Education Centre in Guelph. Finally, everyone must understand that it takes a support staff to run a complex organization like a school board. This renewed Board office will benefit our office employees who will now have an improved and healthier environment in which to work. Now, our anonymous letter writer complains about the bussing of our students and some of the decisions made around student safety. Let's get some facts corrected. First, the bussing for the UGDSB, and 4 other Boards, is run by a Consortium, the creation of which was dictated by the Ministry of Education. If we wanted to receive our transportation dollars (still underfunded!) we had to become part of this consortium. The province's intent obviously was to create a leaner organization that saves tax dollars. That makes sense to me.

Let's look at the weather related issues that our anonymous writer raised. First, it is critical for all to understand that student safety is our number one issue. You may want to make a decision about "go/no go" for your own children, but bus drivers are handling other peoples' precious cargo and they will err on the side of caution. So, at the start of the day, if the weather is bad the "no go" decision in the morning is based on the drivers' recommendations to their dispatcher, according to their local conditions and may affect all 5 partners in the Consortium. We need to understand and support their care for our children. Next, our anonymous writer questions the decisions about closing the schools/school system due to weather...alleging that the decisions are made in Guelph! Well, surprise for him/her, the decision to close schools is made by the Director and Chair (who happens to live in Orangeville!!) and this is done at 5:30 in the morning. Again, safety is the primary concern!

With respect to the location of Board meetings, it's one thing to complain about Board expenditures, but contradictory to complain about attempts to save money and economize! Our attempts at trying to maximize the amalgamation decision made by the Harris Tories will hopefully save taxpayers dollars. As a matter of fact, as Chair I have asked the Board to consider holding meetings outside of the main office in an effort to connect with the community over local issues. We will, in fact, be holding the January '09 Business Operations (Jan. 13/09) at the Dufferin Board Offices. I have to say though that I take exception with the anonymous writer's contention that "Guelph is too far". First there are three trustees who make that trip each week (45 minutes for me), and I am amazed at the number of people from this community who regularly work and shop in Brampton, Guelph, and Newmarket.

Our anonymous writer chose to question the honorarium paid to the trustees of the publicly elected Boards. A little homework on his/her part would have saved his/her questions. However, I have no problem stating that as Chair of the Board, I receive an honorarium of $18,500. A trustee on the UGDSB receives an honorarium of $11,000 and I believe that this information is available on the Ministry of Education's website. FYI, I work about 30 hours a week as Chair which works out to about $11.50 an hour.

I do not want to get mixed up in the current debate about Orangeville councils' salaries (which our anonymous writer alluded to), suffice to say that our honoraria is based on a provincially mandated formula (in the Regulations) that is driven by student enrolment and adjusted each January. So this coming January '09, our honorarium will be reviewed and adjusted according to the student population. Finally, as for accountability to and representation for the voters of Dufferin, there are three trustees serving the public school supporters. Each of us was acclaimed in the last election; and we deal with a budget that is 17 times larger than Orangeville's. I ask the writer, just where does the voting public put their priorities? It is well known that I write a monthly column that includes my contact information...including my name!

I hope that I have corrected many of the inaccuracies in the letter of Nov. 20th and have been able to enlighten the public school supporters of Orangeville and Dufferin.

R.J. (Bob) Borden

Trustee, Town of Orangeville, Chair, Upper Grand District School Board

bob.borden@ugdsb.on.ca