Yes Red Clay. No Christina. So What’s Next?
Residents in the Red Clay School District approved a measure that would raise taxes .35 cents per $100 of assessed property value over three years to cover increased operating expenses in their budget and provide for improvements in technology, curriculum and student services (the actual cost to the average homeowner in Red Clay once the measure is fully phased in would be $280 per year).
The voters’ approval means the district will avoid cuts across its schools and will invest some new money into giving every student access to technology in the classroom, boosting reading programs and providing more interventionists, among other additions.
“We were very excited that our community felt that we were worthy of the tax increase,” Superintendent Merv Daugherty said. “I think it’s a verification that people think we are doing the right job for our students.”
Residents in the Christina School District had two options to chose from, and they said no to both. The first option was a bare bones measure to just “keep the lights on,” and it would have raised taxes .65 cents per $100 of assessed property value phased in over three years. Only 26% of Christina residents voted yes to that. The second option would have raised taxes an additional .40 cents per $100 of assessed property value phased in over four years (so a total of $1.05 per $100), with the additional funds to pay for improvements in technology, arts, and early childhood learning. Only 22% voted yes.
So what’s next?
Christina Superintendent Freeman Williams said the district will pursue a second attempt at a referendum.
“Our community sent a message that we must redefine and refine our request in order for us to have a second attempt at a referendum that would be successful,” Williams said. “We are going to engage people who were supportive and people who were not supportive this time and come up with a focus that will resonate with the public.”
Williams said part of that discussion will be a more specific plan for what would need to be cut from schools’ budgets if the district does not get new money. “We have to make sure that we respond to what happened tonight and do it not as a scare tactic, but as a way for us to be prudent and frugal in our response,” he said.
So the next try will include or at least inform voters that if they vote no, these are the budget cuts that will result. Good plan. These referendums always face an opposition that goes like this: “Why do they need more money? Their adminstrators make 100k. Cut them!!!” Well, they first should educate themselves on how school districts are funded.
Delaware school districts get about a third of their budgets from local taxes and about 60 percent from the state. While the state’s share grows as the districts take on more students, the only way districts can increase their local funding is to periodically seek voters’ approval.
So Christina voters, if you don’t want to pay more in property taxes to fund your school district, wear a condom once and a while, for it is your fault the district is growing. Either you had more kids, or you moved there.
You have no idea (or perhaps you do) the sheer amount of indignant responses to this referendum I witnessed. I serve on the Citizen’s Budget Oversight Committee for Christina, and the absolute garbage I saw circulated in social media about those “fat cat” district administrators, “corruption” and misuse of funds made my head spin.
The saddest part I think was trying to talk with some of the people opposed to it and describe why that graphic they saw on Facebook was severely misleading and/or flat out wrong. Trying to educate on how the district operates financially and why this referendum (at least the “keep the lights on” option) was *needed* not wanted. Most of them just didn’t care to learn about it. They just wanted to rail against “the man” and vote no. One popular response I heard was that “Voting no would send a message to Dover that enough is enough!” from people WITH kids in the district! *sigh*
We’ll try it again in May. It’s one last shot to try and avoid massive reductions in funding and cuts across the district. But even if that one passes, I don’t think cuts can be avoided.
Brian,
Make sure those massive cuts are specifically described. Stupid voters love to rail against taxes but they also love the services those taxes provide.
This was a tough call for me. I don’t appreciate hardly any of the things Red Clay claimed to justify the increase, especially dangling pallets of shiny iPads as if that will make a difference in academic performance. Red Clay is the leader of Delaware’s s shameful resegregation and selective enrollment movement, and it’s not the administrators driving that, it’s Red Clay voters. I was tempted to use my vote to try to defund the shattering of our public schools. How many voters know that a portion of their Red Clay tax dollars go to charters and magnets specifically designed to exclude THEM?
But I hate to vote against a school referendum, for reasons Pandora points out. And there is some good in the new budget, like bringing the AVID program to middle schools where it belongs. Change is in the air in Red Clay and Dover, and my Yes vote was a vote for hope and change, to keep the pile moving until some leadership emerges to halt the destruction.
I posted this on Kilroy’s this morning:
All that said, I truly don’t understand the Christina community. Are they really this uninformed? Anyone want to buy a house in Christina? Didn’t think so. Why does this community keep cutting off its nose to spite its face? What exactly do they think their “no” vote accomplishes? After reading the naysayers (mostly all NCS parents, btw) comments on Kilroy’s I can say that these people not only don’t understand education funding, but have absolutely no flippin’ idea how charter school funding works. The idea that not voting for a referendum will stick it to the school district and doesn’t impact charter schools boggles the mind.
That doesn’t mean you have to support all referendums, but at least arrive at your vote with an informed opinion instead of blatant misinformation and a stunning ignorance that referendums don’t impact charters.
And, Brian, allow me to add to your point. I think a lot of these “no” voters think that if you deny districts funds they’ll improve. How this would work in reality, I have no idea… and neither do they.
Mike, did you notice that RCCD’s referendum lost in all 3 of its public high schools? There’s a message there, I’m just not sure exactly what it is. If I had to guess I’d say that the surrounding communities of these schools aren’t happy with Red Clay’s treatment of these high schools – schools that have suffered with the opening, and all the love shown, to RCCD’s charters and magnets. Could be wrong, but if I lived in Dickinson’s or McKean’s feeder I wouldn’t be feeling warm and fuzzy towards the referendum.
Analysis of specific cuts begins today. Obviously the District and Board can’t count on May’s “Round 2” to pass, so they will have specific cuts laid out to let residents know what’s going away. I’m sure we’ll get an overview at the next CBOC meeting in March and even more detail at the March Board meeting.
Pandora, I agree. A VERY common sentiment I heard was not only would a No vote send a message to the district, it would send one to Dover as well. Another one was the age-old “If I can’t pay my bills, I stop spending, they should too!”
Don’t get me started on the NCS parents. I attempted to explain that ~$80 million (roughly 30%) of Christina’s revenue went right to the Charters in the district this year and it’s tied directly to how much the district spent on its students last year. I was told that private businesses and parents donate plenty to the Charters, Christina has a failing “product” so they should be punished.
Maybe they’ll start to realize it next year when the check they get from the Bank of Christina is a fraction of what it was this year.
Don’t get me started on NCS parents. I doubt a more uninformed group exists when it comes to public education and funding. My bet is that when their Bank of Christina check shrinks they’ll run to Dover and request another charter slush fund be created. Selfish and stupid aren’t attractive traits. 😉
So Brian, what did the district do to correct the misperceptions you say people have about the district? I didn’t see anything in the presentation on the district website explaining why the district has so many administrators and why they make what they do.
I think a lot of people are put off by the scare tactic method of campaigning: “drastic cuts will need to be made” — even if it’s true. I find it irresponsible for any district to say that without spelling out exactly what those cuts would be. So what are Christina residents looking at? No music classes? No football or basketball? How many teachers will lose jobs? How many administrators? These are legitimate questions.
The referendum presentation on the Christina website is quite vague. Lots of “expanded this” or “maintain current that,” but very little in the way of specifics. There was more for section 2, but not much. And there was nothing in the way of “this is what will happen if either or both don’t pass.” People deserve to be informed, and I believe the district did not do all it could do. The blame for the failure in Christina belongs on the school district, not Newark Charter School parents or senior citizens.
I am not a public school parent, but I support public schools. That does not mean, however, that I am an automatic “yes.” That was a hefty increase Christina proposed, and not everyone can afford it. Go back to the drawing board, pound the pavement to explain the plan and earn the support of the voters.
I also agree with Pandora that selective education/bribing of voters needs to be addressed. I have voted no in the past on referenda in Brandywine just because the district deliberately scheduled votes the same night at pizza parties or music recitals. Pisses me off.
Another Mike, first off let’s get a few things straight. The Christina School District Board of Education is the body that decided how much to ask for and what it would go to pay for and what messaging would be passed to the public. District Administration operates based on what the Board decides. The initial District recommendation was lower than what the Board ultimately decided on asking for. The strategy to *not* spell out what specific cuts would need to be made was also decided by the Board because they did not want to use scare tactics to drive voters. (even though, the vague “Drastic unnamed cuts will be made” is still a scare tactic, just an uninformative one) The Board was advised countless times of the need to advertise, market, include, involve the entire community and do it quickly, they were slow to react at first until deadlines for ballot filing drew closer. Granted they were distracted by the fighting with DDOE over Priority Schools, but they knew the deadlines pertaining to the referendum.
Ultimately there were public workshops held regarding the referendum specifics, it was discussed at several regular public board meetings, and several special board meetings and it was discussed at each Citizen’s Budget Oversight Committee meeting (which are also open to the public). The details were provided there with a forum to ask questions.
Do I think the Board did enough to get the information out? Absolutely not. They did a terrible job deciding on how to market this to voters and they went against the District’s recommendations on how much to ask for.
As to the administrators and their salaries. I still scratch my head over this. I’m on CBOC. I examine at the monthly and yearly financial reports along with the other CBOC members. We see their salaries. Yet I struggle to match up the numbers I see passed around on social media with the numbers I look at in the reports. I’d love to know more about the source of that argument though, because I want to find an answer for it.
The main fault of the districts is their tactic of only trying to get out the “yes” vote while, simultaneously, trying to fly below the radar.
And some administrators (as well as DDOE employees) do make too much – and there are too many of them. But in order to address this we’ll need to change the mindset that moving out of a classroom and into administration is a promotion. People should start at district and be promoted, complete with pay raise, into a classroom.
I also agree with Another Mike, operational referendums should be as detailed as capital referendums. “Increase Technology” should state exactly how, where and a detailed breakdown of what will be purchased, how much it will cost and where it will go. Am I wrong to assume that data already exists? If it does, the districts should share it. If it doesn’t, then what is the referendum based on?
Also… if additional charter schools open, or expand, then the things people voted on may have to be scrapped. “Oh, we can’t add the new technology/books/program you voted for because that money will have to go to the new/expanded charter schools.” This is an issue that should be brought to a vote.
Last night Christina voters created a self-fulfilling prophecy. I expect the chorus of people complaining about CSD to grow. They won’t have any solutions, but they’ll be loud in their complaints and slurs.
I should add that I had hope Option 1 would at least pass to keep operations where they’re at now. I had less hope for Option 2. (The ballot design was also Board approved). I don’t mean to sound snarky, I’m just slightly irritated by it all.
There were reports of robocalls in Red Clay — from the so-called Campaign for Liberty — agitating against the referendum with (surprise) fake data. Anyone know more about that?
That data does exist Pandora. It was shared at the Board meetings, and it was reworked once the Board decided to increase what they were asking for. I’m absolutely agreeing with you about the level of detail voters deserve and that there was an abysmal attempt at informing voters this time around.
The whole charter funding thing…ugh. Legislative intervention from Dover is the only thing that will fix that.
Detailing something like what technology will be added and how and where is tricky because it hinges on a capital referendum passing at some point too. Most of the buildings infrastructures for tech are saturated now. If, for example, they ask for an iPad for each student in the operating referendum knowing that the current building wireless networks can’t handle them and the subsequent capital referendum request to upgrade the networks fails, they’ve got a lot of money tied up in iPads they can’t use. There’s more nuance to it than that, I know, but it’s an example of the obstacle course that is the referendum process for schools in DE.
And yes, I heard plenty of complaints leading into the vote yesterday, and very few solutions.
I got that call, Cassandra. My answering machine picked it up, so I probably still have it. I didn’t pay too much attention to it – all it needed was scary music to set the tone. I’ll go and see if it’s still on my machine and actually listen to it this time. I’ll report back!
That said, the anti-referendum robocall was the only call (and notification) I received about RCCD’s referendum. Hard to counter a negative message if it’s the only one your community receives.
Can others tell me if they received calls about supporting the referendum or any mailers? If you did, can you tell us where you live?
Okay, just went and listened to the message – the things I do for you people. 😉 I made a few quick notes.
1. It was from The Committee For Property Rights, located on Eagles Rd in Milton, DE.
2. They state that RCCD’s referendum is the “largest tax hike our small community has seen in decades” and that it “stands to increase property taxes 38%”
3. Vote “No” was said several times
4. Stated that your “cost of living will increase significantly” and your “financial future will be hurt”
5. Stated that RCCD is “not using school taxes responsibly” and that this referendum is “not about the children” that it is about “career advancement and salaries while teachers are struggling.”
So… there you go.
I think people are feed up with the schools & how money is being spent. As an educated voter, you have to do your homework and find out what your voting on. I did not see how or what programs would be increased. For example; “Expanded Talented and Gifted Programs” or “Music and Band Programs”. I also did not see how your going to save money. We are all in a pinch; but from the Governor and the States Budget, to the schools and their budget, where are you going to make the sacrifice?? This is where I did my research; http://www.christinak12.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=178982&type=d
Their budget. In fiscal year 2014 they paid out $567,635.47 for Association Dues & Conference Fees, can that be reduced. Also, I think people were looking at the proposal from the Governor to cut the Seniors benefit from $500 to $200.
People are also looking at the over reach of the Government into the schools with Common Core, other states are abandoning CC, while DE is last on the boat of a sinking ship, go figure.
I agree the advertising for CSD’s referendum was awful and they definitely could have been much more proactive about selling it. Again though, the information on what the money would go to was presented at several regular Board meetings, several special Board meetings and at each CBOC meeting and at Referendum public workshops/town halls.
I’ll also reiterate, if you see something questionable to you on the budget reports, engage a Board member to find out what it’s about. You don’t have to be at a board meeting, you can email any or all of them. Heck, contact me and I’ll ask the CFO directly at the next CBOC meeting (or come attend yourself and ask!) There’s just so little engagement and participation for a multitude of reasons. It’s extremely frustrating.
The info was out there, but it could have been out there more.
These are staggering increases to ask for, particularly in Christina. A nearly 50% increase in property taxes for problem-plagued schools, with no plan for using the money to solve those problems other than to siphon off afrophobes with NCS.
The irony, of course, is that Christina must fund the local portion of costs for students at charters, but there is no penalty for the parents of those students if the district must make cuts at its schools. This is logically perverse and in economic terms provides all the wrong incentives.
Amazing that with all those “doctors” at the department of education, nobody has even noticed this, let alone done anything about it.
No more Tax hikes until they cut the fat.
Here’s a simple thought how about let the people vote that pay property tax vote there the ones who have to pay for the increase !
“The initial District recommendation was lower than what the Board ultimately decided on asking for.”
That statement bothers me a great deal. It along with Pandora’s observations evidence a profound lack of respect for voters and taxpayers on the part of the Board.
The vote count on the referendum was so lopsided I have a difficult time believing they will be able to turn it around in May.
Here’s a simple thought how about let the people vote that pay property tax vote there the ones who have to pay for the increase !
You don’t believe that increases in property taxes get passed along to people renting apartments and houses?
This could all be easily diverted by passing a bill that funds charter schools as we fund vocational schools: line items in the state budget. Allow the district school to keep all the money designated by the feeder pattern… After all, it was designed to go to public schools, until Charter people started interfering with the funding process.
It’s a very solid argument that has been brought up many times, and even Nancy last year published the preliminary circulating bill that would do exactly that.
The money charters are currently stealing, would instead come from the state budget, after all, its officials are the only people in this state who want charter schools, so let them (the top 1% ) pay for them.
Both Red Clay and Christina could then make ends meet by keeping the charter portion they currently have to give up… Btw, this exact same scenario we currently see happening before our eyes, of starving public schools by charterization, is precisely what failed DC, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Philadelphia’s schools, among others… Those districts talk about a lack of money; it all went to charters.
Fund Charters by a line item in the state budget, and bingo, public school funding is not as big of a problem. They may still want more, but at least the current gaping hole in the budget has been plugged.
A couple of comments re Kavips’ last post:
Vo-Techs are NOT funded entirely by the state budget. In NCCo, the vo-tech property tax rate is 15.33 cents per $100 of assessed valuation.
Choice has essentially the same impact on district funding as charters, and Red Clay brings in more kids through choice and charters than it loses to charters and other districts — so these options actually benefit Red Clay’s financial situation. (I don’t have the numbers on this, but it’s safe to say that the number of kids who live in Christina who go to Red Clay schools accounts to some extent for the difference between the 35-cent tax increase sought by Red Clay and the 65-cent increase sought by Christina.)
I think we need a different way of funding charters (in fact, we need a big-time overhaul of the entire school finance system) — but taking all of it out of the state budget isn’t the answer. Perhaps there should be a “charter school district,” a la the vo-techs, with some sort of tax levy, perhaps countywide, that would then be divvied up among the schools according to enrollment.
Being entirely realistic, there’s zero chance that lawmakers are going to adopt a finance plan that would starve the charters anymore than they would adopt one that would starve the districts.
A better solution, one that Rep. Darryl Scott advocated before he retired from the GA, would be to give school boards a limited authority to approve annual tax increases without going to referendum. Small annual increases based on what the districts need makes far more sense than the current process, where districts put off referenda until they reach a deficit spending situation and then ask for increases that are more than they actually need so they can temporarily fatten their balances and gradually spend them down.
Yes, there are those who will say that gives school board members too much power to reach into our wallets, but you could always vote them out of office (and that might prompt greater involvement in school elections). As for saying we have a right to vote on our school taxes, well, we don’t have a direct vote on our county property taxes, or on vo-tech taxes, or on any taxes levied by the state.
One thing that’s really unfortunate about this mess is that Markell, who does have some background in finance, chose to stick his nose into testing, assessments and evaluations, about which he appears to know just enough to be dangerous, when he could have made a major contribution to improving the education system by focusing on reforming the funding process.
Got a great idea; we are funding Bloom friging Energy and they keep getting private investors. They also might go IPO, if that keeps happening, why don’t we get that money back. It was a bad idea from the get go and they haven’t made their marks yet! The schools need money, THERE it is.
IT’S TIME TO DEFUND THAT LAME DUCK, WE CANNOT AFFORD TO KEEP FUNDING PRIVATE BUSINESS!!
The district did not make a recommendation to the Board for the amount to go out for, they gave us an absolute bare bones number that would have necessitated going right back out in year three of a three year step increase.
They asked to board to form its ask based on that shell. We decided to ask for enough to get 5 years of bare bones as our “small number” and a larger number to deliver more tomorrow than we do today. I’m in no position to argue the marketing job its poor execution, but it is evident that we need to be much more comprehensive in what we do to educate the populace on the needs. I strongly believe the lower, bare bones 3 year number would have lost Tuesday too.
Classrooms are going to feel the heat next year. We could fire admin, but they are under contracts and would have to be paid through June, 2016 anyway.
I was having a conversation with a friend yesterday about referendums and I kept thinking districts’ tactics of painting people as “for or against kids” is why they always struggle. Basically, districts talk about community, but they don’t build communities.
When it comes to referendums, districts’ messages are extremely adversarial. It’s Us (school districts, parents of children in their schools = for the kids) vs Them (seniors, people with no children, or grown children, or kids in private school = against the kids). And this tired, old ploy isn’t working. People are no longer buying into a school district, they are buying into an attendance zone – and if they live in an affluent attendance zone they know, referendum or not, their school will be fine – mainly because they have the means to raise a lot of money and the district will always take care of them.
Question the referendum? You’re against children. (And yes, if you know board members or district employees you’ll have your concerns/questions addressed, but most people do not.)
Districts really need to stop drawing those lines. Seriously, (other than property values) seniors, people without children, people with non school age children and people with children in private school are given no reason to vote yes – mainly because districts cast these groups as an obstacle to overcome, rather than part of the community.
Districts limit themselves – and do it by casting these groups as the enemy. Believe me, all of them (especially seniors) hear that message loud and clear. The district message comes through as: Only you good, loving parents of children in our schools truly care about the kids and we must defeat the enemy by coming out, in large numbers, to counter their selfish votes.
And then districts wonder why once kids graduate many of those good, loving, care for the kids parents go over to the dark side. Why wouldn’t they leave when suddenly all communication from district vanishes and what they do hear is they are now placed in the enemy camp – suddenly there are no memos coming home from school, no flyers being mailed to them, no phone calls informing them about the referendum and telling them to vote, no more invitations to referendum night pizza parties or other events. In reality, most of this group doesn’t walk away from public schools, districts push them away and cut off all contact.
I’ve been through many referendums in public schools and one of districts go to statements is: “Parents, you have to vote for this referendum because you know seniors will be out in force to vote against it.” Have districts tried to win any part of the senior vote, or is this group more useful as a referendum scare tactic? Believe it or not, most seniors care about children and schools.
And I’m not saying districts can convince everyone to vote for the referendum. I’m saying that I don’t understand why their tactics rely on outsourcing potential yes votes. Their base consists of parents of K-12 graders. Every year they lose yes votes to graduation – and they aren’t necessarily replacing them with kindergarteners due to the influx of specialty schools like charters – charters that pride themselves on being separate from public school districts, even tho their funding is linked.
And I’m sure classrooms and programs will feel the heat in Christina next year – and that upsets me – but what upsets me more is the way districts market referendums in an “us vs them” sort of way. You don’t win elections by casting possible yes voters as the enemy. Yes, it may energize the parents in your schools, but not forever.
You don’t win referendums by offering people the same product at a 50% higher price.
Damn right, Geez. Which is why we don’t complain when Wawa charges a dime more for a cup of coffee, or for a gallon of gasoline. Same beans, same octane, just costs a little more.
Same thing with schools … if their costs go up a little each year, and the districts could raise taxes a little each year to match those costs, they wouldn’t be coming along every six or seven years asking for 50 percent rate hikes that defy easy explanation to the citizenry.
Christina officials and school board members should have read this blog before commenting to TNJ for today’s article. Apparently, the learning there is confined to the classroom. To wit:
“Part of that, Polaski said, will be more clearly explaining what the district would have to cut if it doesn’t get more money.
Though administrators have not yet created a detailed proposal, money raised from local property taxes pays for things like extracurricular activities and athletics, which would likely all see significant cutbacks. The district pays for assistant principals at high-poverty schools that might also lose their jobs.”
Administrators have not yet created a detailed proposal? Seriously? That proposal should have been written long ago, even if it was not released publicly. Likely all see significant cutbacks? Likely have to make layoffs? Well, will they or won’t they?
This was Christina’s opportunity, with public attention and a high-profile platform, to show everyone how dire the situation is, and they blew it. Now, they have to spend time creating that detailed proposal, then try to educate their voters that it is imperative they pass the referendum, and, my personal favorite, plan many pizza parties.
I don’t take any joy in piling on Christina, but they make it so darn easy.
Another Mike, there was a defined proposal complete with funding numbers that the referendum (if passed) would have paid for. It was presented to the Board at more than one meeting. That document does exist and has existed. I’ve gotten copies of it.
The marketing of that document is another story. But it does exist.
The proposal they have to create now is exactly who and what to cut assuming the second attempt at a referendum fails.
“what the district would have to cut if it doesn’t get more money.”
Yes, they should have, but even then, many would say “go ahead and cut.” In a world where you have to ask someone for money, you don’t offer them cuts because they will take you up on it. Once upon a time, in the space business, we said that if we were cut 10% that we would have to close our Kodiak satellite tracking station. Congress said “go ahead” and then we had to because that’s what we said would happen. Not very smart in my view.
A better strategy would be to articulate the need in terms of the mission. We will unable to register and educate any new children would come of school age in the district. We will be unable to have any AP classes. We will be unable to transport children to and from school. We will be unable to heat the classrooms.
You know like real impacts. The problem is, they continue to execute the mission, albeit in a degraded manner. They can’t hire an administrator? So how does that affect the students? They can’t build a new school? So what? They may discuss things in terms of what the money is spent on but they don’t discuss it terms of real mission impacts.
FWIW, Red Clay’s referendum slide show did have a page outlining how it would make $9 million in cuts, and their vote passed.
Christina’s presentation focused disproportionately on the extras that would be added if the larger of the two proposals passed. Not saying they shouldn’t have done that — you’ve got no chance of getting it if you don’t ask — but they didn’t make a convincing case for paying more to maintain the status quo, let alone the added programs.
Also, I’ve been watching referenda in Delaware for more than 40 years and, since the law does allow districts to come back with a second try for passage before the tax warrants have to be sent to the county, there is a school of thought that says you don’t threaten the cuts on the first try, you save that for round two. Historically, that strategy has been successful in most districts most of the time.
So I’m sure Christina will have a detailed list of cuts before the second vote is held.
Will be interesting to see how well they identify and articulate the cuts.
For example, are they willing to cut varsity sports, or just the JV teams?
Will they dare say that school buildings will not be open after 5 p.m. or on weekends for any activities?
Can they say that they will save on utilities by setting the thermostats at no higher than 62 degrees in the winter and not running the AC from May 1 through Sept. 30?
Ok, go to this website: http://www.christinak12.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=178982&type=d
2014
Pay out to Harvard University $20,000
Providence Service corp. Looks like a staffing agency $1.5 million
University of DE $1 million
What is this for??
Services:You might not have to cut, maybe consolidate. It’s an eye opener, people!!