Rulffes’ earnest, but futile, plea to Gibbons

Friday, Jan. 9, 2009 | 2:01 a.m.

Walt Rulffes must have missed that facile definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

How else could the Clark County schools superintendent recently have penned this plaintive plea to Gov. Jim Gibbons about the state budget: “Do you really want to do this to the children of Nevada?”

If the governor donned his signature turtleneck this week and actually decided to participate in budget discussions he has avoided so far, I’d guess Rulffes’ melodramatic or realistic (depending on your perspective) question probably didn’t faze him.

Gov. Turtleneck has taken a casual approach to the months-long cutting process for a state that his own budget director surely has informed him is spending less per capita than 30 years ago. When he makes a rare appearance in his office, perhaps to peruse his list of unqualified cronies to appoint to state commissions he is trying to abolish, I am sure Gibbons will give Rulffes’ letter all the attention he thinks it deserves. That is: None.

The School District may not be the cleanest messenger these days, what with my colleague Emily Richmond reporting on questionable overtime pay practices. But Rulffes’ missive makes some compelling points and invokes an unlikely ally — the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce — to try to convince the governor that the expected cuts in salaries and benefits will be disastrous.

“Recently the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce acknowledged to its membership the concern over state budget cuts and the resulting reductions in core services,” Rulffes began his letter to Gibbons. “The Chamber further expressed the likely need to increase revenue ...”

Rulffes was referring to Chamber Government Affairs Chairman Hugh Anderson’s e-mail a month ago to members in which he candidly wrote: “Given the severity of the current economic crisis, coupled with the significant cuts that have already been made, it is likely that more revenue will need to be raised if this crisis continues.”

I doubt Anderson expected his words to be hijacked by Rulffes for his purposes. But if truth be told, no one out there except Gibbons believes that simply gutting salaries for public employees is the solution — short- or long-term.

The problems with simple solutions — across-the-board cuts, reductions in the monster that is personnel costs — is that they rarely have long-term, substantive impact. For instance, as Rulffes points out, cutting so-called step increases for teachers, who make up about two-thirds of state employees, may save the state a lot of money. But it is not so simple, as Rulffes, probably banging his head against a wall, tried to explain to Gibbons:

“That (eliminating step increase funding) may seem topically to be an easy answer to reduce expenditures without cutting services. Not so. It reduces the funding, but not the contractual requirements for the expenditure. Not only have teachers invested their own funds and time to earn educational salary steps which creates a moral obligation of the District’s part but also both longevity and educational salary steps are a contractual requirement of school districts, which creates a legal obligation, as well. Thus, reduction of state funding ostensibly for salary step increases would, in reality, result in further loss of educational services to students.”

I know what you are thinking: Scare tactics. Chicken Littlisms.

As Rulffes would say: Not so.

This tactic is emblematic of state officials — the governor and lawmakers — acting as Pontius Pilates with money or school districts. They are happy to crucify the locals while absolving themselves of any responsibility.

Rulffes pointed out to Gibbons that the district has erased $133 million and has been directed to make like reductions for the coming round of carnage. “These cuts will surely reduce our graduation rates, which are already shamefully too low,” the superintendent wrote.

Does Gibbons really want to do that?

I think Rulffes and others would just like to get the feeling that the governor knows what he is doing or cares enough to have a dialogue. As Gibbons begs Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for federal largesse to reduce the deficit — how ironic from the guy who loves to attack D.C. spending — legislative leaders of both parties have been talking to business groups, which understand the reality that simply balancing the budget on the backs of state workers is not the answer.

But what is?

I would tell you I think lawmakers will consider serious reform to the state retirement/benefits system in exchange for some substantive changes to the state’s nonexistent tax policy — yes, I mean some increases, too, to avoid decimation of critical services.

But if I said something that optimistic, I might be accused of insanity, too.

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

By Future2012

1/9/09 at 7:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jon Ralston keeps missing to point.

Why are they talking to Gov. Jim Gibbons about the state budget. Gibbons is out gunned by the Democratic lawmakers.

Gibbons is a figurehead only and can only offer a proposal.

The veto proof Democratic Legislature has sole control over what happens.

Lets be candid here.

The budget for next year is going to be about the same as the actual for this year.

Then we can add the billions of dollars of Obama stimulus money as a bonus.

That is actual. So the goal can be to just hold down ecalating cost such as salaries.

What we have not yet heard is the Legislature's tax proposals.

Will an increased room tax work when room are empty?

We do need Gov. Jim Gibbons plans we need the Legislature's tax and spend plan

Jon Ralston present the Legislature's tax and spend plan
By bdover

1/9/09 at 7:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jon, there is one overhanging question:

If you throw money at a problem, which is the low graduation rate, how does that magically result in substantive improvement? If Mom and Pop make a living changing sheets and parking cars, and are happy, should we expect to be able to turn their numerous offspring into MENSA candidates? According to the US Govt, the 4 lowest performing states are New Mexico, Arizona, California, and yes, Nevada. Think about it, Jonnie boy, it ain't space science, there is a connection.
By jfnance32

1/9/09 at 8:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

"If you throw money at a problem, which is the low graduation rate"

It depends on how one counts a drop out. If a student and his family moves out of state then some studies will count that as a drop out. Other studies will not.

In one study, Nevada is very close to the national average drop out rate which is around 5%. Califorina leads that study at 25%.

In other study, Clark County is near the top because that study counts students who move.

Urban areas will nearly always have higher drop out rates than rural areas.
By Future2012

1/9/09 at 8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

What is the veto proof Democratic Legislature's tax and spend plan.

They have sole control over what happens.
By CCSDTeacher

1/9/09 at 9:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

"I know what you are thinking: Scare tactics."

If teachers had backbones, they would STRIKE, but that will never happen. Why? Because if you look closely at the backside of any teacher, you will see the following word emblazoned --- W E L C O M E

You might not be able to read the words because many folks have continually stomped on the backs of teachers -- parents, legislators, governors, CCSD board of trustees, general superintendents, their own faux-teacher union leadership, and even a few hotshot media types like Mr. Ralston. Yes, their backsides are pretty dingy, but they continue to teach kids.... and for what? I guess the answers are varied, but most like the opportunity to work with children. Unfortunately, this stalwart group will take it on the chin --- once again. And in 2011 when the state legislators meet once again, teachers will get the short end of the stick--- and they will again have to clean their backsides --again.
By teachlv

1/10/09 at 2:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

We were promised backlash to the passing of legislation requiring Nevada schools be funded first in the budget. But, the legislation passed and they funded education first. Then what happened? The backlash kicked in. They took back millions of dollars from the school district. So much for funding education - first.

There is a simple solution to the problem of funding education. Let the money run out, then simply close the doors until either additional funding is provided or it is time to start the next school year.

We would then truly find out how committed our community is to the education of our future!