Doug Whitehead, said they felt, at the end of the day, it became a “pocketbook issue” for many voters.
This is incorrect. They voted against the plan, not the cost.
If I remember correctly, that survey question came from the 2012 'Push Poll' survey. Please re-examine that survey question in the context in which it was presented.
I don't see anyone being disrespectful, but rather pointing out that hyperbole is worth the facts it's based on: nothing. If you're going to make the statement, "Our teachers are some of the best in the country...", cite your source.
I have problems with the way the JCSB has handled the needs of the students and community over time. They have abandoned their own 2011 survey noting the Patrons (read taxpayers) preference for 2 high schools. Their 2012 survey reads like a 'Push Poll' (look it up if you're not familiar with the term) in that the survey seems like it's designed more to change the opinion of the participants than gather data from them. The school board purchases a huge tract of land for just over $26k/ acre that will require 100's of thousands more to develop (add access for water, sewer, electric and such to support). Shortly after this land purchase was made, the JCSB announced the pending sale of the current high school facilities, thereby ELIMINATING the possibility the possibility of multiple high schools. The fact that the proposed sale price is for pennies on the dollar regarding the actual value of that real estate is just salt in the wound. Poor management of the district's resources, too, I might add. That sale of facilities to LU and LSTC was signed pending passage of the NOT YET PUBLISHED Bond Issue and proposed tax increase.
At each critical juncture where the JCSB had an opportunity (and some would say obligation) to communicate with it's Patrons and tax payers, the JCSB has chosen to move forward on their per-determined agenda FIRST, and ask for forgiveness after rather than permission ahead of time.
It would seem to me that the best way for Jefferson City community to get what we've asked for is to vote NO on these propositions next week. Send the JCSB back to the drawing board until they come up with a solution the community can actively support, not just the 'last possible course of action' the school board has so far directed us to. their actions date seem less like leading the community where the community has stated they wanted to go, and more like the JCSB has manipulated us into a bad idea the board has had it's sights set on all along.
kella65109 - I would argue that if a worker isn't paying the union dues, that worker isn't a union member.
Choices are always good.
" MSBA does take financial benefit from its partnership arrangements with bond financing companies used for capital projects in public school districts, including JCPS. "
With that in mind, the article now re-reads:
A team of hand-picked school administrators from around the state who rubber stamped the Jefferson City Board of Education’s plans to build a replacement mega-high school concluded the cost and staffing estimates developed by Jefferson City school administrators are appropriate.
“There were no holes in any of their data, and all their recommendations were sound,” said Attorney/Lobbyist Melissa Randol, MSBA deputy executive director, who helped facilitate the committee’s work, and who plans on having a nicer vacation next summer if the Patrons approve the bond issue
The crony review committee was assembled by the Missouri School Boards Association (a subsidiary of the JCPS); their report was issued Friday. (after offices close to avoid answering uncomfortable questions)
Emphasis mine, leading to interpretive fiction. Is there an unbiased, verified source for this data? Would an information request of DESE be out of line?
School tax actually went down some over the last 5 years, just check your property tax receipts. Taxes WILL need to go up to support any new construction.I just hope we (The Patrons) can settle on the best, most efficient plan before the April election cycle passes.
We do tend to shoot ourselves in the foot when we point ourselves down a particular path before achieving some kind of consensus.
"What do we want?!" "Change!"
"When do we want it?!" "25 to 30 years ago!"
"How do we want to pay for it?!" ::crickets::
Time for a new capital building. Should probably let those folks in Europe know they are WAY past bulldozing time. :)
The point is brick an mortar lasts a really long time. Unless there's evidence of structural problems, there's no reason not to make use of the asset that's already paid for.
I'm all for CCW, but this sounds like a direct knee jerk reaction.
I find that I agree. The Academy academic model sounds workable, but it's NOT dependent on bricks and mortar. I think we need multiple, smaller campus'.
Last login: Wednesday, April 3, 2013
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.