Tierney wrote:
Ok, I still don't understand, but I'm guessing some of these changes make the higher-up look better on paper.
Let's say the budget for our department next year is $3 million. This includes payroll, benefits, equipment leases, insurance, depreciation, materials, etc.
By cutting our department, they've "saved" $3 million, freeing it for spending elsewhere.
So each department/school has a set amount of money in its budget for printing. Normally, that would come to us, so in a way, the district was paying itself for the work. Now they'll have to pay an outside vendor, so that money will be leaving the district. Our prices were usually much better than outside vendors' because we got great rates from our suppliers as a school. Since our costs are lower, our prices can be lower.
One example is that we print district maps showing each school's location and which high school it feeds. The maps are either 32" x 36" or 42" x 48". They can be printed on paper, printed and laminated, or mounted on foam core (in which case, we printed directly on the foam core and laminated it). For a 42" x 48" map printed on foam core and laminated, we'd charge $45, and I'd have it to the customer within two business days. At the print shop I worked at prior to working for the school district, they would charge $252, and it would take at least 5 business days. The two products are identical - same foam core, same lamination material.
I'm thinking that district leadership has decided to make print costs the departments' and schools' problem. Leadership will look good,
on paper, because they were able to cut $3 million from the budget. But the students will suffer because the schools won't be able to order the same quantities of items as in the past.