|
|
They've got it
The FRC report was presented to the Board during the summer, and I believe it has been discussed at a couple of the board meetings.
If you really would like to read the report, ask for a copy at the district office. After you have read it, maybe you can offer some points of discussion instead of venting your spleen first.
By Member also
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kindergarten Space
Gee, I wonder just how many kindergarten classes could be held in the North concession stand?
For that matter, how many class rooms could have been added to the North high school if the money spent on the concession stand were to have been used for educational space?
By Fed Up
|
|
|
The art of listening
I think in a back door way Mr. Rigelman has hit on the problem here locally with our school board.
I guess what I see is the frame of mind of the those elected to our school board. More than once I have heard them state publicly that their first priority is the welfare of the children and the student?’s education. We see comments here by Mr. Rigelman where board members are double checking the administration for cost over runs and other functions clearly assigned to well paid employees. Is it the job of a school board member to constantly be working more than most school administrators on routine matters?
The point of the above paragraph is me asking what is the role of a school board member. Yes; they should have the welfare and the education of our children as one of their highest priorities. However don?’t they also represent ALL of the voters in a district that vote for them?
When the school board places on the ballot a bond proposal and it is rejected by 67% of the voters then they are clearly not representing the wishes of the voters. Isn?’t it the role of any elected official that represents a constituency to reflect the very people that voted for them in the first place?
As we have seen here on this web site and in this very discussion everyone thinks they are right and they have planted their heels into the concrete and they are not moving from their position because they reflect the voters not the other guy. Actually we reflect our own priorities not the entire voting population of this district. What the task ahead for the board must be is to appeal to enough voters to get a bond levy passed. That may take some compromise from the hard liners and a little give here and there on the part of all of us. However I have not seen any attempt so far in that effort to compromise.
What is killing the levy campaigns is the current message coming from the board and the hardliners is full of hypocrisy.
What the board must do is find that proposal that appeals to those that are in economic straights, those that have children in school, and our seniors that worry about how the school manages its money. I have heard comments from people that say the board has cut them off from any comments. Some board members have even block emails and refused to listen to voters at board meetings.
I know that the current board members will be re-elected next month because they are running unopposed. However I also understand they will not do any campaigning. That is unfortunate because standing on one?’s door step and listening is a great learning experience. Even if we must send our board members to bar tending school for two weeks it would be much better than the current arrogance displayed by the board. So to say they are and they feel a responsibility to run for the board because no one stepped forward and then say they won?’t campaign only further removes them from the public and the voters they represent.
|
|
|
It's a little voice,
but still a voice
Bruce,
I'll offer you my viewpoint on consistently voting no on school issues:
#1: Over the past twenty years or more you've seen a consistent effort by the education lobby to increase the size and role of their industry. As that role has grown you've seen higher and higher levels of funds needed to feed the monster. There are more 'special interest' programs than ever, each requiring staff and administrative overhead. Most bring very little true benefit to the education process. (One that quickly comes to mind in PLSD is the Voyager program in the elementary grades.)
#2: Add to that the administrative overhead in general. Do we really need 'Dean of This' and 'Dean of That'? All typically $100M+ each in expense. A related issue is the generous compensation package of the entire industry compared to the private sector. I have yet to see any real attempt to challenge the PEA over the years on compensation.
#3: Facilities beyond the need for education. Ignoring the Taj Mahal equality issues, the growth in facilities is almost beyond control. First one group gets something then the next and soon every interest group wants their share. That's how we end up with $5MM performing arts centers with digital production facilites that most universities do not yet have.
#4: Why should I pay for new growth? If 400+ new students move in from new developments, I do not feel the need to pay for their new facilities. Land donation by the developer is a token contribution and they know it. The major expense is buildings and operations. This is the crux of the entire impact fee argument.
I'm a whisper in the wind overwhelmed by the noise of the education lobby and parents with vested interests. But I suspect a fair number of the no votes out there have similar issues as I have. Until things change, and I don't see anything soon, the no vote remains.
|
