Cathy Piehl responds to A/C issue

[asmodeus]

Hello Amy,
Thank you for bringing up an important concern for our elementary students. I believe everyone on the board and the administration would agree with you that the heat is a very difficult issue for our students, and does have a negative impact on learning. (I suspect the chuckles on the last day of school, although inappropriate, were related to the exhaustion our staff also feel about the lack of air-conditioning in our schools, not a representation of disrespect to your concern.) I believe the principal of White Eagle can speak to that.

However, I wanted to present to you a history of the air-conditioning issue in our elementary schools, so that if you do indeed plan on pursuing this as an issue the board should consider a priority over other needs of our students, you will have accurate information to move forward.

I have pulled from emails that various administration and board members have created to respond to these same questions. I have always encouraged parents to contact the principal so they can know what steps are taken at the individual schools to help alleviate the discomfort of the heat in the classrooms.

I think it is also helpful for parents to know that the Director of Buildings and Grounds, Todd DePaul, is diligent about checking both temperature and humidity in our non-air conditioned buildings. An index, called the "ET" or Effective Temperature, factors both temperature and humidity to measure what hot weather feels like to a person. The ET provides our standard for making the decision to close non-air conditioned buildings. Specifically, if the temperature exceeds the recommended guidelines of safety which is when the Estimated Temperature calculation (ET) reaches 85 degrees, Dr. Birkett will recommend early dismissal for non-air conditioned buildings. Parents will be notified via website and Connect Ed, and dismissal will be at 1:00PM.

There truly is a long history behind why our elementary schools do not have air conditioning. The following are comments which Mark Metzger put together to answer the question of this history:
________________________________________

In the 1980s the district began using our model of community involvement in major decisions, including referenda. Referendum committees were established and tasked with recommending what should be placed on the ballot for referendum voting.

In the late 1980s, we built Brookdale and Georgetown as the new prototype elementary schools. At that time, elementary schools were being built at a rough cost of $4 million. The additional cost of air conditioning was about $500,000 or so per building. In the earliest days of the building referenda (late 80s, early 90s), some referendum committee members took great pride in pointing out to their fellow taxpayers that they’d saved $1,500,000 by not including air conditioning in the referendum for three new elementary schools, not to mention the electricity savings.

For some, it was an important selling point that the tax increase was a bare bones approach and fiscally conservative; at 12-15% of the building cost, it also looked pretty smart to a lot of people. Some did question whether that was short-sighted, but the “it’s only really needed for three weeks a year” argument tended to carry a lot of weight, particularly when the parents’ own non-air conditioned experiences were brought back to mind (“We lived without it….”).

Referendum committees adopted a four question approach to doing the work of shaping referendum requests:

1. What do we want?
2. What do we need?
3. What can we afford?
4. What will the public support?

If you read the questions in that order, they force continual reductions: The answers to question 1 are (and were) both expansive and expensive. The “need” question pared the list down from a wish list to a “must have” list. The “afford” and “sell” questions forced difficult decisions with the goal of making painful choices to ensure passage of the most vital of the “must have” elements.

Since 1991, the question of air conditioning has been on every referendum committee’s consideration list from two perspectives:

1. Should we air condition the new elementary schools we are proposing to build?
2. Should we go back and air-condition the older ones?

In the early 90s, the questions were viewed by referendum committees as closely linked. The committees tended to conclude that if they couldn’t afford to air-condition the older buildings, they couldn’t, for reasons of parity, air-condition the newest ones. They concluded that air conditioning the older elementary schools couldn’t be “afforded” at the time because the referendum would be too expensive. Some argued that air conditioning the new buildings was tantamount to thumbing noses at those who built and occupied the older schools and that the resulting disparity would cause the existing parts of the district without air conditioning to vote down the referendum on “fairness” issues.

The mid-90s brought the first waves of really large-scale growth and building. The district grew by about 2,000 new students per year in the mid-90s. Far and away most important goal was ensuring that building referenda would pass, since the consequences of failure were so dire. The same decisions and arguments drove the same results, with the added component that as the number of non-air conditioned elementary schools grew, the line item to “catch up” rapidly got so
large, that it was very easy to take it off at the “afford” level and the parity issue continued to keep it out of the newer schools.

In 2001, the referendum committee for the first time decided that the issues of air conditioning new buildings and air conditioning existing buildings were separate. While they concluded that they did not wish to ask the public for $800,000 per building to air condition the existing elementary buildings, they also concluded that there was no longer any reason to continue to build elementary schools without air conditioning. That's why only two of our 21 elementary schools, Owen and Peterson, are air conditioned.

In some ways, this is perfect proof of the old adage that hindsight is 20/20. From hot August days in 2007, it hardly seems to be sensible not to have air conditioned the elementary schools. From the standpoint of abject terror over failing a referendum by asking for too much in the early 90s, it made a lot more sense. In hindsight it’s easy to forget just how hard-fought these referendum campaigns were. In 1994, there were people who were adamantly opposed to building Neuqua Valley because we would never be able to fill a second high school in this district and it will sit unused.

There is no reason that a group of citizens could not propose a building bond referendum to air condition the remaining elementary schools. There has never been Board or administrative opposition to doing so. Historically, however, referenda initiated and led by the Board and the Administration are doomed to failure, so I doubt such an effort would ever start there.
________________________________________
The following is from Curt Bradshaw, our current Board President:

Adding air conditioning is entirely dependent on the community being willing to pay for it. For context, it would currently cost nearly $2 million per school (~$40 million total). In an effort to assess the community's desire to fund air conditioning, a specific question was added to a survey the district conducted November of 2009. The specific questions was as follows: "Most of the elementary schools in the district are not air conditioned. In order to air condition all the elementary schools, voters would need to approve a local property tax increase, which would cost the average homeowner in the district $107 per year. If a proposal was placed on the ballot to raise property taxes in order to air condition all the district's elementary schools, would you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose such a proposal?"

The results were that the majority of district residents were strongly opposed or opposed to adding air conditioning. However, the results were close enough that it will be a question we continue to assess over the next several years. We will be surveying the community again in the near future.
________________________________________
I hope this information is helpful. It is worth reiterating that if more community members become more supportive of financing air-conditioning the elementary buildings, we can put this up for a referendum. I will be curious to see what our next survey results look like. I would concur however that this question has to come from the community if we expect to pass a referendum on the issue. At this point in time, with our current budget cuts, the atmosphere for increasing the tax bill is not favorable, so I suspect that there will be a need for quite a bit of dialogue within the community before your opinion is shared by the majority of the community.

Take Care,
Cathy Piehl
IPSD 204 Board Member


From: Amy Sillito [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:00 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; hemang_depaul!@yahoo.com; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Naomi Quinn; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: ATTN all Parents/Board Members - health concern for our children @ White Eagle Elementary

Hello White Eagle Parents,
After visiting White Eagle Elementary yesterday for the first time with temps over 93, I found myself very upset that our children were having to sit in classrooms where you can literally cut the air with a knife. When calling the front office of White Eagle Elementary, I received chuckles instead of concern when asked why there was no AC for the students, from the ladies at the front office, when temps outside were well over 93 degrees. According to the assistant of the Superintendent, for district 204, all of the middle schools and high schools do, just not the elementary schools (I am hearing reports that there are 3 elementary schools that do). After finding out that money is being spent on smart boards and new lighting for one of the high schools (costing almost $70,000) rather than air quality is absurd to me.

I plan on attending the Board Meeting on June 20th at 7pm. If you or anyone would like to join, I can sure use the support.

I am asking all parents to sign a petition at www.gopetition.com/petitions/air-conditioning-for-white-eagle-elementary-school-in-d.html.

I am also asking for all of us parents, to voice our concerns with the School District by calling Todd DePaul at [phone]. His email address is: [e-mail]

Thank you for your time and interest in our children's health and for your support.



Sincerely,

Amy Sillito

[Arch]

The air conditioning for the elementary schools and the funds to run them well into the future sits up on Eola road just south of Diehl.

That's the *real* answer today and going forward.

[asmodeus]

The other thing that wasn't addressed is why the schools were designed the way they were if they knew a/c wasn't going to be installed. It's true many of us grew up in public schools without a/c, but we also could open windows. In addition, the design seems to not be conducive to an a/c retrofit, since the article said it would cost $2m per school (compared to the 500k it would have cost to put in originally).

[doctorwho]

Jun 8, 2011 20:40:28 GMT -6 asmodeus said:

Hello Amy,
Thank you for bringing up an important concern for our elementary students. I believe everyone on the board and the administration would agree with you that the heat is a very difficult issue for our students, and does have a negative impact on learning. (I suspect the chuckles on the last day of school, although inappropriate, were related to the exhaustion our staff also feel about the lack of air-conditioning in our schools, not a representation of disrespect to your concern.) I believe the principal of White Eagle can speak to that.

However, I wanted to present to you a history of the air-conditioning issue in our elementary schools, so that if you do indeed plan on pursuing this as an issue the board should consider a priority over other needs of our students, you will have accurate information to move forward.

I have pulled from emails that various administration and board members have created to respond to these same questions. I have always encouraged parents to contact the principal so they can know what steps are taken at the individual schools to help alleviate the discomfort of the heat in the classrooms.

I think it is also helpful for parents to know that the Director of Buildings and Grounds, Todd DePaul, is diligent about checking both temperature and humidity in our non-air conditioned buildings. An index, called the "ET" or Effective Temperature, factors both temperature and humidity to measure what hot weather feels like to a person. The ET provides our standard for making the decision to close non-air conditioned buildings. Specifically, if the temperature exceeds the recommended guidelines of safety which is when the Estimated Temperature calculation (ET) reaches 85 degrees, Dr. Birkett will recommend early dismissal for non-air conditioned buildings. Parents will be notified via website and Connect Ed, and dismissal will be at 1:00PM.

There truly is a long history behind why our elementary schools do not have air conditioning. The following are comments which Mark Metzger put together to answer the question of this history:
________________________________________

In the 1980s the district began using our model of community involvement in major decisions, including referenda. Referendum committees were established and tasked with recommending what should be placed on the ballot for referendum voting.

In the late 1980s, we built Brookdale and Georgetown as the new prototype elementary schools. At that time, elementary schools were being built at a rough cost of $4 million. The additional cost of air conditioning was about $500,000 or so per building. In the earliest days of the building referenda (late 80s, early 90s), some referendum committee members took great pride in pointing out to their fellow taxpayers that they’d saved $1,500,000 by not including air conditioning in the referendum for three new elementary schools, not to mention the electricity savings.

For some, it was an important selling point that the tax increase was a bare bones approach and fiscally conservative; at 12-15% of the building cost, it also looked pretty smart to a lot of people. Some did question whether that was short-sighted, but the “it’s only really needed for three weeks a year” argument tended to carry a lot of weight, particularly when the parents’ own non-air conditioned experiences were brought back to mind (“We lived without it….”).

Referendum committees adopted a four question approach to doing the work of shaping referendum requests:

1. What do we want?
2. What do we need?
3. What can we afford?
4. What will the public support?

If you read the questions in that order, they force continual reductions: The answers to question 1 are (and were) both expansive and expensive. The “need” question pared the list down from a wish list to a “must have” list. The “afford” and “sell” questions forced difficult decisions with the goal of making painful choices to ensure passage of the most vital of the “must have” elements.

Since 1991, the question of air conditioning has been on every referendum committee’s consideration list from two perspectives:

1. Should we air condition the new elementary schools we are proposing to build?
2. Should we go back and air-condition the older ones?

In the early 90s, the questions were viewed by referendum committees as closely linked. The committees tended to conclude that if they couldn’t afford to air-condition the older buildings, they couldn’t, for reasons of parity, air-condition the newest ones. They concluded that air conditioning the older elementary schools couldn’t be “afforded” at the time because the referendum would be too expensive. Some argued that air conditioning the new buildings was tantamount to thumbing noses at those who built and occupied the older schools and that the resulting disparity would cause the existing parts of the district without air conditioning to vote down the referendum on “fairness” issues.

The mid-90s brought the first waves of really large-scale growth and building. The district grew by about 2,000 new students per year in the mid-90s. Far and away most important goal was ensuring that building referenda would pass, since the consequences of failure were so dire. The same decisions and arguments drove the same results, with the added component that as the number of non-air conditioned elementary schools grew, the line item to “catch up” rapidly got so
large, that it was very easy to take it off at the “afford” level and the parity issue continued to keep it out of the newer schools.

In 2001, the referendum committee for the first time decided that the issues of air conditioning new buildings and air conditioning existing buildings were separate. While they concluded that they did not wish to ask the public for $800,000 per building to air condition the existing elementary buildings, they also concluded that there was no longer any reason to continue to build elementary schools without air conditioning. That's why only two of our 21 elementary schools, Owen and Peterson, are air conditioned.

In some ways, this is perfect proof of the old adage that hindsight is 20/20. From hot August days in 2007, it hardly seems to be sensible not to have air conditioned the elementary schools. From the standpoint of abject terror over failing a referendum by asking for too much in the early 90s, it made a lot more sense. In hindsight it’s easy to forget just how hard-fought these referendum campaigns were. In 1994, there were people who were adamantly opposed to building Neuqua Valley because we would never be able to fill a second high school in this district and it will sit unused.

There is no reason that a group of citizens could not propose a building bond referendum to air condition the remaining elementary schools. There has never been Board or administrative opposition to doing so. Historically, however, referenda initiated and led by the Board and the Administration are doomed to failure, so I doubt such an effort would ever start there.
________________________________________
The following is from Curt Bradshaw, our current Board President:

Adding air conditioning is entirely dependent on the community being willing to pay for it. For context, it would currently cost nearly $2 million per school (~$40 million total). In an effort to assess the community's desire to fund air conditioning, a specific question was added to a survey the district conducted November of 2009. The specific questions was as follows: "Most of the elementary schools in the district are not air conditioned. In order to air condition all the elementary schools, voters would need to approve a local property tax increase, which would cost the average homeowner in the district $107 per year. If a proposal was placed on the ballot to raise property taxes in order to air condition all the district's elementary schools, would you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose such a proposal?"

The results were that the majority of district residents were strongly opposed or opposed to adding air conditioning. However, the results were close enough that it will be a question we continue to assess over the next several years. We will be surveying the community again in the near future.
________________________________________
I hope this information is helpful. It is worth reiterating that if more community members become more supportive of financing air-conditioning the elementary buildings, we can put this up for a referendum. I will be curious to see what our next survey results look like. I would concur however that this question has to come from the community if we expect to pass a referendum on the issue. At this point in time, with our current budget cuts, the atmosphere for increasing the tax bill is not favorable, so I suspect that there will be a need for quite a bit of dialogue within the community before your opinion is shared by the majority of the community.

Take Care,
Cathy Piehl
IPSD 204 Board Member


From: Amy Sillito [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:00 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; hemang_depaul!@yahoo.com; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Naomi Quinn; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: ATTN all Parents/Board Members - health concern for our children @ White Eagle Elementary

Hello White Eagle Parents,
After visiting White Eagle Elementary yesterday for the first time with temps over 93, I found myself very upset that our children were having to sit in classrooms where you can literally cut the air with a knife. When calling the front office of White Eagle Elementary, I received chuckles instead of concern when asked why there was no AC for the students, from the ladies at the front office, when temps outside were well over 93 degrees. According to the assistant of the Superintendent, for district 204, all of the middle schools and high schools do, just not the elementary schools (I am hearing reports that there are 3 elementary schools that do). After finding out that money is being spent on smart boards and new lighting for one of the high schools (costing almost $70,000) rather than air quality is absurd to me.

I plan on attending the Board Meeting on June 20th at 7pm. If you or anyone would like to join, I can sure use the support.

I am asking all parents to sign a petition at www.gopetition.com/petitions/air-conditioning-for-white-eagle-elementary-school-in-d.html.

I am also asking for all of us parents, to voice our concerns with the School District by calling Todd DePaul at [phone]. His email address is: [e-mail]

Thank you for your time and interest in our children's health and for your support.



Sincerely,

Amy Sillito

I'll save you the survey response Curt- not another f'n dime from me--- sorry. YOU pissed away $150m for a school you didn't need instead of taking care of what you already had and making it work ( see 203 ) - - I feel bad for the kids but they can call you when they are hot and you can tell them what a great decision MVHS was.
There is NO situation I would not only not vote for a referendum, none that I wouldn't work diligently against as long as this leadership stays in place.

[al]

OK, I'm going to ask something that may be profoundly stupid, so bear with me.
$2 million per school? Going to work with that number then. Is there any reason at all why individual room air conditioners can't be used, for example - Delonghi PAC A140E
14,000 BTU Portable Room Air... $499.99.
30 rooms = $15K.

These things no longer have to be installed in a window. Think portable unit like a dehumidifier.

Of course it is not as effective as central air, there is an accompanying electricity cost, and it doesn't work in areas like the LMC or gym, but it would sure help a whole lot more than the multiple portable fans being used in each classroom.
Or am I just being obtuse?

[southsidesignmaker]

The A/C issue seems to come up in late spring and early fall most years. I like the idea of portable units though I suspect there would be storage and maintenance issues. Of course there are the obvious energy issues, though again I suspect the district could overcome those objections (just look at the busing of hundreds of students clear across town).

The real issue is if the local taxpayer would spring for the extra expense on the tax bill. Based on my bill and the 204 tax rate increase of 3 times the rate of inflation, I would say that the a/c issue is dead on arrival. Add the fact that the district is not getting any younger with many voters no longer having children in district and the head winds continue to mount.

A better endeavor Amy would be to get on board for the operations referendum which has to be right around the corner. We will need an Army of volunteers to get a ref. passed in this environment.

[doctorwho]

Jun 9, 2011 20:09:38 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

The A/C issue seems to come up in late spring and early fall most years. I like the idea of portable units though I suspect there would be storage and maintenance issues. Of course there are the obvious energy issues, though again I suspect the district could overcome those objections (just look at the busing of hundreds of students clear across town).

The real issue is if the local taxpayer would spring for the extra expense on the tax bill. Based on my bill and the 204 tax rate increase of 3 times the rate of inflation, I would say that the a/c issue is dead on arrival. Add the fact that the district is not getting any younger with many voters no longer having children in district and the head winds continue to mount.

A better endeavor Amy would be to get on board for the operations referendum which has to be right around the corner. We will need an Army of volunteers to get a ref. passed in this environment.

because an army awaits you to defeat it as soon as it is announced. Sorry- SSSM- no more money-- $150M has been pissed away...no other district did that. School closures ahead just like we told everyone. Drunken sailor spending years are over - the SB chose the 3rd HS on Eola - enjoy

The difference between us and the SB is we didn't LIE to anyone.

btw- the portable units also create issues for every hearing imparied child in the distict- that ground was covered also a long time ago.

[casey]

Jun 9, 2011 20:09:38 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

A better endeavor Amy would be to get on board for the operations referendum which has to be right around the corner. We will need an Army of volunteers to get a ref. passed in this environment.

That's the perfect solution, eh, get more foot soldiers aboard and pack AC into any future referendum. Then you can get the community of young parents with upcoming elementary school kids to support a future referendum - to pay for AC. I'm not buying it and based on the community outcry of rising taxes, rising unemployment, etc. I don't see ANY referendum passing. It's time to do more with less. No more money for 204.

IMO, schools should have never been built without AC. Now granted some of the older schools were already existsing without AC but any school that was built in the last 10-12 years should absolutely have had AC put in it. The only reason that the new schools were built without AC was because they didn't think it would be "fair" to all the schools that didn't have it. To me that only escalated the problem. It was shortsighted and stupid to continue down a road of doing something that they knew was stupid (building anything without AC). Seriously what house, building, or even car for that matter around here that's new (within the last 10-12 years) doesn't have AC? Brilliant decision making on our old SB. They probably couldn't stand the thought of kids in TG and WE having air conditioning if the kids in Brookdale didn't. . It's the democratic way.

[Arch]

My kids went to an ES without AC, and I'd still vote this down in a heartbeat, especially the way the SB/Admin arrived at such a high cost. There would be no guarantee that the money approved would be spent on it either. They'd just want the approval to tax you more.

[southsidesignmaker]

Casey, I am not sure where the public outcry is that you speak of. With 10-12% voter turnout in the last election I would suspect that 80% + are busy with other issues.

An army of volunteers pushing an operations ref may be a lot easier to pass than you think. Now would be an ideal time to get one started especially if the state continues down it's present path. The magic Number IMO would be a 5% increase, most folks would not have an issue with a couple bucks a day. For that kind of cash there probably is not even a reason to show up to vote against it.

[Arch]

Jun 10, 2011 10:21:04 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

Casey, I am not sure where the public outcry is that you speak of. With 10-12% voter turnout in the last election I would suspect that 80% + are busy with other issues.

An army of volunteers pushing an operations ref may be a lot easier to pass than you think. Now would be an ideal time to get one started especially if the state continues down it's present path. The magic Number IMO would be a 5% increase, most folks would not have an issue with a couple bucks a day. For that kind of cash there probably is not even a reason to show up to vote against it.

With the economy today, I'd bet you an ice cold beer on that...

[macrockett]

Jun 9, 2011 20:09:38 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

The A/C issue seems to come up in late spring and early fall most years. I like the idea of portable units though I suspect there would be storage and maintenance issues. Of course there are the obvious energy issues, though again I suspect the district could overcome those objections (just look at the busing of hundreds of students clear across town).

The real issue is if the local taxpayer would spring for the extra expense on the tax bill. Based on my bill and the 204 tax rate increase of 3 times the rate of inflation, I would say that the a/c issue is dead on arrival. Add the fact that the district is not getting any younger with many voters no longer having children in district and the head winds continue to mount.

A better endeavor Amy would be to get on board for the operations referendum which has to be right around the corner. We will need an Army of volunteers to get a ref. passed in this environment.

Especially when they see...:

a school that was so desperately needed (MVHS) with only 1200 kids in it (almost the same number taken out when WV gold became FMS),

a school that came in $19m over budget (that they knew about but "forgot" to pass it on to the parents and taxpayers),

a school that is costing us $3.5m per annum (not a cent of which goes to programs to educate our kids) while, at the same, time enrollment is declining and, based on the incoming grades is reflecting 2008 enrollment levels.

Nice job Curt and Co. Lets all celebrate! The kool-aids on me!

[Arch]

Don't forget to mention the Super's nice big raise and increase in retirement benefits... that costs all taxpayers more, then they have the audacity to cry BOOHOO, we need more money!

[casey]

Jun 10, 2011 10:21:04 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

Casey, I am not sure where the public outcry is that you speak of. With 10-12% voter turnout in the last election I would suspect that 80% + are busy with other issues.

You might be right, but I think the tide is turning. Judging by the high number of people that came out to vote down a Wheatland Township building (largest turn-out in history of ANY township in the country). The $1.5M they were looking for (which in reality would be a true pittance to each Wheatland taxpayer) was soundly knocked down. People came out to ensure no money would be spent on ANYTHING. I think that's the future for 204 voters. I think now with the economy the way it is, when you're talking about spending taxpayer money I think there will be the huge outcry that I'm referencing. I'd love to see them try to throw AC in with a referendum. I could be wrong but I think it'd be destined to fail.

[EagleDad]

Jun 10, 2011 10:21:04 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

An army of volunteers pushing an operations ref may be a lot easier to pass than you think.

I say bring it SSSM, it stands about as much chance as a clay pidgeon at a skeet range.

I'm at the line...PULL!

Would be some fun sport. There is no way a referendum of any type passes in this climate.