We now are faced with a request for another levy. Only this time, it is a whopping $26 million ($12.9 million each year for the next two years.)

If you recall the last levy, the outcry to control spending led to the formation of a finance advisory panel of five people; I was privileged to be one of them.That group was made up of extraordinary backgrounds; one a former CEO of a corporation and vice chair of billings for a school district; one a former superintendent of a school district, a staff development director and consultant; one a former federal finance officer and former member of a school board; myself with extensive background in complex budgeting in NASA/Aerospace programs; and a former chief financial officer for a major corporation.

We worked long hours and met frequently to review data and internal operations of District 271. After nearly seven months of hard work, we compiled a list of 18 recommendations (not 21 as alleged by some) for reducing the budget and improving services overall.In March of 2009, we made a public presentation to the district and board along with detailed outlines as to how to reduce spending being provided to each board member and the superintendent as well.

To date, despite claims to the contrary, only token consideration has been given those recommendations.Had the district followed our lead, rational reductions in spending would have been implemented and we would not be in this mess to the extent we are now.

A $26 million levy is not the answer. Nor is the old war cry "It's for the Kids" valid any longer. That excuse is total garbage.Staff reductions needed to be made starting two years ago and were ignored. Benefits packages needed to be re-negotiated and were ignored. Some of the changes we supported were in fact made by the district's own chief financial officer and have been ignored as well.

When things really got binding and those changes nearing a mandatory stage, they had a $5 million stimulus bonus dumped into their laps. So guess what? No efforts to change. They used that money to maintain the status quo knowing full well they could not maintain that level of spending when it ran out.So, the only option left was to try to hammer us to approve the continuation of that one-time stimulus pot through a fat tax increase.

Let's look at some of the items you generally never hear about.1. Over 85 percent of the money received by the district is used for salaries and benefits and it continues to grow each year. 2. Our district pays 78 percent of the health care costs for its employees and families.

Post Falls pays only for its employees and if employees add their families, the employee pays for it.If our district adopted this policy (very much a standard in the business world) it would save several million dollars per year in that area alone.

3. District part-time employees of 20 hours per week or more are entitled to full benefits.Post Falls pays half benefits to part-timers and adjusts a sliding scale up to 37 1/2 hours per week which then qualifies for full benefits. How much would that change save?

It is estimated that District 271 will pay out close to $10,000 in health care premiums this year per part-time employee (working 20 hours per week) and full time employee.But there's more. The district projects health care costs per employee will, by 2018, reach nearly $20,000 per year. Not my numbers, theirs. Just how big do you think the levy will have to be to support that 800-pound gorilla?

They also provide a life insurance program at a cost of over a $100,000 per year. Post Falls does not.District 271 at one point was paying out nearly $130,000 a year to a "broker" to negotiate their health care package. Trouble was, he worked for the company handling it! That was something we pushed to stop also. I am not sure if they finally stopped that as I have seen nothing to prove it was no longer being done.

But still they persist in holding onto uncontrolled spending while asking us to pony up $26 million to pay for things most people only dream of having.Am I anti teacher? Hell no I'm not! Regardless of occupation, no one should expect the taxpayers to continually subsidize individuals to maintain such benefits when many of those paying the tab cannot begin to think of having such goodies.

Remember, more than 85 percent of the district's income is salaries and benefits. That leaves less than 15 percent to pay for utilities, building maintenance and repairs, insurance, vehicle/bus maintenance and fuel, groundskeeping, textbooks, etc. That means less than 15 cents of every dollar they get is used on these items.

Now tell me "IT'S FOR THE KIDS." Staffing cuts are needed also. We have a few certified employees beyond the number allotted by state formula who are supported by levy dollars and sadly, must leave us. Many part-time jobs were once done by volunteer parents. They need to be cut also and a return to volunteer services made.

Unnecessary "nice to have" or "feel good" programs must be eliminated immediately.I now offer you a quote from October 2008:

"We have, my friends and colleagues, entered into the perfect storm. Here are the components:"We have stretched our community's goodwill to the limit by raising the bi-annual levy from $3 million to $8.8 million over the last six years.

"We have committed to programs pre K-12 that, WHILE SOME ARE IN THEORY AND MANY ARE IN PRACTICE 'GOOD FOR THE KIDS,' ARE FRANKLY VERY EXPENSIVE AND IN TODAY'S ECONOMY, NO LONGER AFFORDABLE."These were the words of our superintendent, Ms. Bauman and yet, they persist in keeping some portion if not all, the very things the Finance Panel recommended be terminated.

In all fairness and credit to Hazel, there was more regarding some actions taken to reduce the budget but were not as deep as was needed then or now.They claim they cut $8 million from the budget over the past two years. Where? Show us an item by item breakdown of eliminated items. No projections or anticipated savings work sheets, either. We want to see the factual numbers you claim exist. Where are they? I doubt they actually exist, folks.

(Also, if you really did cut $8 million, why do you now claim you need $26 million more? Voodoo economics or new remedial math?) You also need to know the Board of Trustees has minimal involvement in developing the budget. Why? The abrogation of one's responsibilities to which they were elected and took an oath to perform is terrible.

A NO vote on the levy is the only solution to force the necessary cuts to get the budget in balance. The district must understand they cannot expect the taxpayers to fund what they cannot afford themselves. For starters, the district MUST revise the benefits packages NOW. I know they are negotiated items but those contracts MUST be reworked NOW.

Personnel cuts are mandated NOW. Pull out the Panel's recommendations and follow them NOW.

When you re-negotiate (and we all pray you have the guts to do so) use independent negotiators.The people used last time were district employees who were beneficiaries of the very items they were negotiating. No more incestuous relationships!

As to another "Task Force," that is totally unneeded. You already have solid proposals from the Finance Panel. Follow them. No more smoke screens.Finally, if anyone is inclined to support any part of the levy, limit to the $7 million proposal. The additional $5 million requested must not pass. If they get that, the budget will never be brought into balance and we will face ever increasing levies in the future.

Jim Ballew is a Coeur d'Alene resident who developed complex budgets for Aerospace/NASA. He also worked as a trial lawyer and is a retired L.A. Superior Court judge.