Q&A with Superintendent Joe Gothard, as Madison's $607 million school referendum vote looms

Among a host of political races, Madison voters on Tuesday will weigh in on two funding requests that have big implications for the future of the Madison School District.

The $100 million operating referendum would help stabilize the district's budget and pay for staff raises and program expansions. The $507 million capital referendum would fund repairing and replacing several middle- and elementary-school buildings, plus Shabazz City High School.

Both referendum proposals would raise local property taxes to direct more money to the school district. A failure on one or both questions means the district would have to delay construction projects or consider tough personnel cuts starting in the 2025-26 school year.

Before Tuesday's election, Superintendent Joe Gothard, who was hired earlier this year, sat down with the Wisconsin State Journal to talk more about the two funding requests.

Q: What does your experience tell you are the keys to convincing a majority of voters to approve a referendum?

A: I look at it not so much as convincing people. I look at it in terms of educating our community about the role in public schools and how we can best meet the needs of our students (and) how we can sustain our efforts moving forward.

I understand that in the state of Wisconsin, 90% of our funding in MMSD is on our permanent taxpayers, and that is a lot. That is a figure that is higher than any I've ever seen. So I do understand that this continual burden that is placed upon our taxpayers is a lot. So, it isn't so much convincing them how to vote on a question, it is to establish the importance of public education.

How well do you think Madison administrators and the School Board have done that?

It's been great. I don't want to wish referenda on any other new starting superintendent, but it's been a great way for me to be out and connect. You know, people might not always want to come out to meet the new superintendent, but when you start talking about taxes and referendum, I think it has brought out a really great wide range of our community, service organizations, just different groups that have requested information.

If one or both referendums fail on Tuesday, why do you think that will be?

I think a few things — cost, without a doubt. It is a large ask. We also have a high percentage, I've heard as high as 80%, of households who no longer have school-aged children.

However, Madison has always been a place that has valued and placed great interest in supporting our children, and even though there may not be school-aged children in those households, their neighbors and perhaps grandchildren, their own children, and even some of those very citizens are MMSD graduates. So there's a lot of pride.

Madison has been supportive of school referendums, historically. But this time around, people are still struggling with the effects of high inflation, the pandemic and the high cost of living in Madison. How concerned are you that voters will decide they just can't afford it?

That's real. And other than 11 years, I've spent my whole life in this community, so I certainly understand the challenges that individuals and families in this community face.

This community has my commitment that I will continue to advocate at the highest level, in the most vigorous way, to increase (state) spending for public schools. As I stated, 90% of property taxes funding our operational revenue is simply too high. It's past time that we find a way to create streams of school funding that are sustainable and that are leading to better outcomes for students.

There has just not been a way for the realities of leading a public school district to stay true to what the costs really are. As a result, students suffer, staff suffer, and certainly the community, who are counted on time and time again to fund a referendum, are also suffering.

What steps have you taken to advocate for changes to public education funding in Wisconsin?

I would say (conversations) are just getting started. But I don't think it will take long, and I hope that my voice will be clear and frequently heard. It is something that I've shared with the community that I'm committed to, specifically with special education.

Special education underfunding impacts each district because all of us serve children with disabilities. So in my mind, it would be an equal way to support school districts, and the state can make that decision.

I've heard people touting, you know, "Let's increase (funding) by 30%." I also don't agree with that. It should be fully funded.

Why start with special education funding?

(There are) 1.5 billion reasons why. That's the amount that the state underfunds special education by. It would have the single most dramatic impact on all of our budgets if it was fully funded.

What do you think is the tougher sell: The $100 million operating referendum or the $507 million capital referendum.

I haven't thought about it in that way. Both are important to the school district.

I think it's challenging in that the $507 million ask is eye-opening. You look at the financial impact of that spread out over 23 years versus the impact of a scaffolding, recurring referendum, and it gets really technical fast.

Walk people through what happens if these measures fail on Tuesday.

The next election that we may consider would be April. So there would be some time for us to consider, if we have a failure at either question, what a more palatable ask may be. We're talking about mid-January before we'd have to have that next decision made. So we'd have to get to work pretty quickly.

At the same time, if (the) operations (referendum), for example, fails, we have a very short time for us to consider some workforce reductions. By handbook definition, we would have to give notice to certain employees at different times if we were to, in fact, reduce in those areas.

On Nov. 6, the 10 facilities we identified are going to be a day older than they were on Nov. 5. They're not going to get younger. They're not going to be repaired on their own by some miracle. What are some other options we have for those same facilities or the way we stagger it out?

What I'm going to try to eliminate is our need to come back every two, three or four years for different questions. There's a lot of fatigue around that kind of voter participation as well. Yes, these numbers are large, but it also sends a message to our community that we don't have to come back every other year or every five years. We'd like to get to a place that's more sustainable.

If either referendum fails, do you anticipate coming back to voters with a similar referendum in 2025?

I think we'd have to take in and look at the data that we have. Is it a narrow margin or was it (an) overwhelming margin? I think that would be information the board would be interested in, our community would be interested in.

If one or both questions fail by a narrow margin, what would that tell you?

It would tell me that we were close and that, you know, if we can come back with a more palatable ask, that perhaps the community would be more supportive.

Staffing is the school district's biggest expense, so do you anticipate significant staff cuts if the operating referendum fails?

At this point, I don't have an itemized list of what's going away. We just don't, we haven't worked in that way yet.

That will be certainly part of our budget moving forward and we do that every year anyway. But if we're going to make adjustments to those formulas that we use, there would be some significant impacts that I'd like to prevent us from having.

Has the district had any conversations about where to look first, if cuts are needed?

No, we haven't, because (the district has) $46 million in fund balance for this year. This referendum, and me being back and new, has truly occupied this time. We'll shift gears if we have to.

Why hasn't the district or School Board outlined a spending plan for the $100 million operational referendum?

It has been. The $30 million, if we're successful on Tuesday night, will go to reduce the amount of fund balance we're spending.

What about the other $70 million?

I think we've been pretty clear about the continued investment in 4K and increasing that. I think we've talked about being innovative in our approach (with) other programs that are high interest to our community. I think we've already demonstrated to this community how much value we have on our employees by agreeing to 2.06% increase before (the operating referendum) and another 2.06% after the referendum. We've committed to things for the future that we want to sustain and not have to reduce or eliminate.

Would the referendum be enough to fix the school district's structural budget deficit?

I think there are other variables involved in that. Are we going to get any additional inflationary increases or additional special education funding? What's our enrollment going to look like in four years? This is the work that we're doing right now and it may not sound strategic to many, but enrollment is a huge variable in our overall revenue structure.

Has the district crunched the numbers yet using some of those variables?

I think there are some trends that you can establish with inflation to know that $100 million in four years may very well not be the kind of revenue that we need to sustain our efforts moving forward.

But again, because it's involving so many other variables, we have to work hard on sustaining our efforts right now, stabilizing our enrollment, not losing any more.

"On Nov. 6, the 10 facilities we identified are going to be a day older than they were on Nov. 5. They're not going to get younger."