I received an email a few days ago requesting a short summary of the the arguments against the bond issue before early voting starts. For a quick 30 second summary, take a look at the Wichitans for Effective Education ad here.
There are four main reasons to vote against the bond:
1) The bond is too big and bloated.
One of the many claimed purposes for the bond is to reduce overcrowding. The enrollment at USD 259 has been relatively flat for the past 20 years. Existing grade schools and elementary schools are not being used at full capacity, while an additional new high school could easily be constructed using existing funds.
The tax increases from bond passage would result in Wichita property taxes for education being higher than both Maize and Andover. For a district trying to stem the flood of students leaving the district for Maize and Andover schools, this is a recipe for disaster.
2) The bond plan is based on the wrong priorities.
The schools that are performing worst academically, the ones failing state achievement standards, are receiving less than 5% of the bond funds. Most of the funds that are going to those schools are earmarked for athletic facilities.
Similarly, the assigned attendance area (AAA), the area of assigned busing, is also being short changed. Less than 5.8% of the bond funds are destined for the schools in the AAA neighborhoods.
3) Passage of this bond will be positive reinforcement of the failures of the USD 259 leadership, further setting back real accountability.
Not only did USD 259 fail to protect our children by adding FEMA shelters during the last round of construction, the overall performance of the educational mission of this district has been substandard. Nearly 25% of students in USD 259 fail to graduate.
The district insists on playing games with district boundaries to separate economically disparate neighborhoods rather than putting kids first and easing localized overcrowding at some schools.
Nearly $7.5 million of the current bond proposal will be spent on facilities that are less than five years old. Not only is this costing tax payers, but it points to a startling lack of foresight by district leadership.
4) The behavior of the School Board and others connected with this bond raise questions about the veracity of the BOE and motives of the bond supporters.
Any hope that the Board of Education might be interested in listening carefully to community concerns when out the window when they changed the date for the bond vote (and added $10million to cover 'inflation' because of the delay) because it looked like their side was losing.
The board then turned over authority to make decisions of the shape and form of the bond to a secretive group of bond supporters, while stonewalling bond opponents seeking simple information, such as the number of classrooms in the district.
A quick look behind the curtain reveals that the money behind the vote yes campaign is really just the usual group of architects and contractors, many of whom don't even live in the district. In fact, the spokesperson for the group doesn't live in the Wichita district.
Happy voting!
Showing posts with label democracy?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy?. Show all posts
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Place Your Bets!
. Tonight is the big night! After deciding that neither extra construction costs nor democratic process would outweigh the benefits of providing CARE and SJCF an overtime period to convince the community that the bond plan is a good idea, it comes down to this evening's BOE meeting.
On July 28th CARE provided the results of their study to the Board. Along the way, some mysterious business person suggested the creation of an aviation magnet school, and an as yet unknown group paid for a survey.
Tonight, the board will carefully weigh the 'pros' and 'cons' of the bond plan. As elected officials, we can trust the School Board to use their judgement and carefully deliberate on the proposal before deciding if, and when they will place the bond proposal on the November ballot.
Before placing any wagers on the outcome of tonight's meeting, whether to board decides to vote tonight, or the results of their decision, it would be wise to look at the USD 259 website statement regarding the CARE proposal:
The Board of Education was supportive of the changes.
“I think this is a great plan and I think the public will support the changes,” said Board of Education Vice President Barb Fuller.
“It’s important that we do this now,” said Board of Education President Lynn Rogers. “If we delay this any longer, construction costs will significantly increase.”
The Board will discuss CARE’s recommendations and vote on a new bond issue resolution during its August 11 meeting.
The 'fix', as they say, is in.
On July 28th CARE provided the results of their study to the Board. Along the way, some mysterious business person suggested the creation of an aviation magnet school, and an as yet unknown group paid for a survey.
Tonight, the board will carefully weigh the 'pros' and 'cons' of the bond plan. As elected officials, we can trust the School Board to use their judgement and carefully deliberate on the proposal before deciding if, and when they will place the bond proposal on the November ballot.
Before placing any wagers on the outcome of tonight's meeting, whether to board decides to vote tonight, or the results of their decision, it would be wise to look at the USD 259 website statement regarding the CARE proposal:
The Board of Education was supportive of the changes.
“I think this is a great plan and I think the public will support the changes,” said Board of Education Vice President Barb Fuller.
“It’s important that we do this now,” said Board of Education President Lynn Rogers. “If we delay this any longer, construction costs will significantly increase.”
The Board will discuss CARE’s recommendations and vote on a new bond issue resolution during its August 11 meeting.
The 'fix', as they say, is in.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Bond Poll Results
.
The public is still waiting with baited breath for the release of the CARE public opinion poll on the $350 million bond issue conducted last month. True, the as yet unknown persons who funded the poll aren't required to share the results with the rest of the world. It does seem odd that CARE, or whoever, wouldn't be sharing the overwhelmingly positive poll results with the Eagle and public at large.
So, in lieu of talking about the CARE polling data, we are left with the results of a KWCH/SurveyUSA poll conducted on July 15th.
The first question, how much of an impact will gas prices and the economy have on the respondent's bond vote, sets the tone for the poll. 68% of respondents noted that it would impact their vote. It might be going out on a limb, albeit a very sturdy one, to assume that the slowing economy will make voters less likely to vote for higher taxes.
The second question isn't so black and white: "Should the vote be delayed until the economy improves?" The response was clearly that the vote should be delayed, 49% to 44%. However, this shouldn't be used as an indicator of overall support for the bond itself. Some bond supporters can clearly see that $350 million is a tough sell in a slowing economy and want a delay. Similarly, bond opponents may not want any further delays.
The third question gets to the heart of the matter: "Should the bond issue be scaled down in order to get it passed?". Again, 49% of respondents replied in the affirmative, while only 41% didn't believe the proposal should be scaled back. Both conservatives and liberals overwhelmingly (53% and 49% respectively) saw the need to scale the proposal back, although one would assume for different reasons.
The results are surprising, if the pro-bond groups are to be believed. The USD 259 website is chock full of claims that the entire community had input and is clamoring for a $350 million bond issue. CARE has had an additional 3 months to educate the public about the virtues of the bond plan.
What remains to be seen is if CARE/SJCF will propose that the school board proceed with the original bloated bond plan, submit a new proposal that nibbles around the edges, completely retools the proposal to address the real issues in the district, or suggests shelving the idea all together. Considering the money and egos involved, I'm guessing they won't concern themselves with something as insignificant as polling data.
The public is still waiting with baited breath for the release of the CARE public opinion poll on the $350 million bond issue conducted last month. True, the as yet unknown persons who funded the poll aren't required to share the results with the rest of the world. It does seem odd that CARE, or whoever, wouldn't be sharing the overwhelmingly positive poll results with the Eagle and public at large.
So, in lieu of talking about the CARE polling data, we are left with the results of a KWCH/SurveyUSA poll conducted on July 15th.
The first question, how much of an impact will gas prices and the economy have on the respondent's bond vote, sets the tone for the poll. 68% of respondents noted that it would impact their vote. It might be going out on a limb, albeit a very sturdy one, to assume that the slowing economy will make voters less likely to vote for higher taxes.
The second question isn't so black and white: "Should the vote be delayed until the economy improves?" The response was clearly that the vote should be delayed, 49% to 44%. However, this shouldn't be used as an indicator of overall support for the bond itself. Some bond supporters can clearly see that $350 million is a tough sell in a slowing economy and want a delay. Similarly, bond opponents may not want any further delays.
The third question gets to the heart of the matter: "Should the bond issue be scaled down in order to get it passed?". Again, 49% of respondents replied in the affirmative, while only 41% didn't believe the proposal should be scaled back. Both conservatives and liberals overwhelmingly (53% and 49% respectively) saw the need to scale the proposal back, although one would assume for different reasons.
The results are surprising, if the pro-bond groups are to be believed. The USD 259 website is chock full of claims that the entire community had input and is clamoring for a $350 million bond issue. CARE has had an additional 3 months to educate the public about the virtues of the bond plan.
What remains to be seen is if CARE/SJCF will propose that the school board proceed with the original bloated bond plan, submit a new proposal that nibbles around the edges, completely retools the proposal to address the real issues in the district, or suggests shelving the idea all together. Considering the money and egos involved, I'm guessing they won't concern themselves with something as insignificant as polling data.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Wichita School Board Abdicates
Few truly believed that the members of the USD 259 school board were ever, really, in charge of what has been happening in the district. Yet, the decision of the school board to publicly abdicate their responsibilities still comes as something of a surprise.
The story in Sunday's Wichita Eagle seems to indicate that CARE will be making the decisions regarding the size and shape of the bond plan.
Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education (CARE), a group of volunteers who support the bond issue, will hold a series of public forums in coming weeks to gather input from voters.
The hope, said co-coordinator Sarah Olson, is "to engage the community, and also to find out what people's concerns are."
"Depending on what the community tells us... we may have to reformulate (the plan)," she said.
Really? Sarah Olson and CARE are going to reformulate the plan? I don't recall seeing Sarah Olson's name on a ballot.
Joe Johnson, senior vice president for Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, said it's too early to say whether the bond proposal will change because it may have strong support now.
But "it never hurts to get public input," he said. "And if there are compelling reasons (to reduce the bond), then CARE needs to take a look at that, and they will."
CARE leaders plan to collect feedback from the forums, as well as from a recent telephone survey, and present recommendations to the school board July 28. The board would have to vote by mid-August to put the issue on the Nov. 4 ballot.
After the decidedly negative public response to having a $350 million shoved down our collective throats, it's nice that we have permission from Joe Johnson to give public input, as opposed to the 79 hand selected members of the 'advisory group'. But there is still hope that the public will rise up and demand higher taxes and a $350 million bond plan.
Interim superintendent Martin Libhart hopes the upcoming public forums -- one for each quadrant of the district -- will show rousing support for the bond issue plan.
Then again with a headline like this "Low turnout for bond issue meeting" and fewer than 40 attendees at the first public meeting, mostly CARE members and USD259 employees, it seems unlikely.
The story in Sunday's Wichita Eagle seems to indicate that CARE will be making the decisions regarding the size and shape of the bond plan.
Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education (CARE), a group of volunteers who support the bond issue, will hold a series of public forums in coming weeks to gather input from voters.
The hope, said co-coordinator Sarah Olson, is "to engage the community, and also to find out what people's concerns are."
"Depending on what the community tells us... we may have to reformulate (the plan)," she said.
Really? Sarah Olson and CARE are going to reformulate the plan? I don't recall seeing Sarah Olson's name on a ballot.
Joe Johnson, senior vice president for Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, said it's too early to say whether the bond proposal will change because it may have strong support now.
But "it never hurts to get public input," he said. "And if there are compelling reasons (to reduce the bond), then CARE needs to take a look at that, and they will."
CARE leaders plan to collect feedback from the forums, as well as from a recent telephone survey, and present recommendations to the school board July 28. The board would have to vote by mid-August to put the issue on the Nov. 4 ballot.
After the decidedly negative public response to having a $350 million shoved down our collective throats, it's nice that we have permission from Joe Johnson to give public input, as opposed to the 79 hand selected members of the 'advisory group'. But there is still hope that the public will rise up and demand higher taxes and a $350 million bond plan.
Interim superintendent Martin Libhart hopes the upcoming public forums -- one for each quadrant of the district -- will show rousing support for the bond issue plan.
Then again with a headline like this "Low turnout for bond issue meeting" and fewer than 40 attendees at the first public meeting, mostly CARE members and USD259 employees, it seems unlikely.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Who is "We"?
On Monday, board president Connie Dietz said delaying the vote was the right move, despite potential cost increases.
"Yes, it's worth it, because we're going to win," she said.
Given the history of the administration, it's not surprising to see money spent on frivolous window dressing and consultants instead of addressing the real issues of the the district. However, it seems odd that the President of the USD 259 School Board would not be the least bit concerned about spending taxpayer dollars to manipulate an election.
Often times, elected officials attempt to maintain a degree of impartiality and neutrality, not only is it required by Kansas law, but it is one of our most basic democratic institutions.
Frankly, Connie Dietz should be admired for not even bothering to pretend that she isn't using her elected position to affect the outcome of the bond issue vote. No condescending comments about "hearing all sides" and she isn't wasting our time by telling voters that she is "carefully considering the issues". Nope, just a flat out "we're going to win".
The attempt by the school board to fix the school bond election, coupled with the refusal to allow public comment on the board's decision to change the day of the election makes it clear that Connie Dietz doesn't include Wichita voters as part of her "We".
"Yes, it's worth it, because we're going to win," she said.
Given the history of the administration, it's not surprising to see money spent on frivolous window dressing and consultants instead of addressing the real issues of the the district. However, it seems odd that the President of the USD 259 School Board would not be the least bit concerned about spending taxpayer dollars to manipulate an election.
Often times, elected officials attempt to maintain a degree of impartiality and neutrality, not only is it required by Kansas law, but it is one of our most basic democratic institutions.
Frankly, Connie Dietz should be admired for not even bothering to pretend that she isn't using her elected position to affect the outcome of the bond issue vote. No condescending comments about "hearing all sides" and she isn't wasting our time by telling voters that she is "carefully considering the issues". Nope, just a flat out "we're going to win".
The attempt by the school board to fix the school bond election, coupled with the refusal to allow public comment on the board's decision to change the day of the election makes it clear that Connie Dietz doesn't include Wichita voters as part of her "We".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
