When is it time to transform agonizing into action?
That's a question the Jefferson City School Board must decide.
We believe district voters deserve an opportunity to vote solely on high school facilities. Here's why.
After the April 2013 rejection of a bond issue and tax levy increase, the board has been grappling with the two-part question of what to put on the ballot and when to do it.
Members met again Monday and arrived at no definitive recommendation. And, although they generally agreed on one issue, they complicated another.
A difficulty the board faces is an agonizing array of choices. Regarding facilities, discussion has included building a new elementary school on the east side, renovating Callaway Hills Elementary School, building a new high school, renovating the existing high school and redrawing district boundary lines.
Added to the options at Monday's meeting were middle school concerns and the possibility of asking voters to forgive the statewide Proposition C rollback, which essentially would result in a tax increase generating about $4 million annually for the school district.
In this forum on Oct. 5, we wrote: "Too many choices can be a recipe for inaction."
For that reason, adding the Proposition C option - with its own set of pros and cons - is counterproductive.
We also wrote earlier this month: "We also believe the plan must be as simple and focused as possible."
Therefore, we were encouraged when consensus among board members favored asking voters to decide a series of specific issues instead of a combined facilities issue.
The failed 2013 ballot issue included multiple projects, but the largest - and most expensive - was a proposed replacement high school for all students. Critics contended two public high schools, new construction and renovation, was a preferable alternative.
Were the critics a majority or vocal minority? And was the criticism sincere or an excuse to vote no?
Although the case can be made for elementary needs, voters deserve an opportunity to decide the unresolved approach for two public high schools.
Regarding timing, an April date would require a lesser majority than other dates, but committee members fear April is too soon.
Any date is too soon if adequate preparations are not made in advance.
If facilities are a priority, as discussion would indicate, the time has come to stop the hand-wringing and commit to a plan of action.