When you go to vote in November, you'll be voting either for or against a $260 million school facilities bond. That much has been decided.
The Board of Education gave the thumbs up to staff to move forward with a bond notched at $260 million last week. The motion was passed 3-1 with board president Greg Marvel being the single "nay" vote. (Board member Paul Gardner had an excused absence from the meeting.)
Marvel's "nay" wasn't voting against the bond, which he wanted to make clear. "I'm not opposing the bond, I am opposing the dollar amount," Marvel said.
He wanted a higher number.
He brought up a bond closer to $300 million at the May 22 meeting and again last Wednesday night. At the May 22 meeting, the board told staff that the , with potentially moving that number up pending a discussion about sending out another bond survey.
The board also had that new survey discussion last Wednesday and it decided against sending out another one by a vote of 3-1, with board member Denise Jennison the lone supporter of the action.
"What we learned from the forums and our original poll is that the community needs more information about the need (of the bond)," Jennison said. "Once they get the info, they understand the need, they are supportive."
Board clerk Rachel Hurd disagreed.
"We don't need a tracking poll, we need to move forward and start a campaign and educate the community, which is what the campaign is," she said.
The district had already asking them, among other things, their feelings on a bond between $190 and $260 million. The survey came back that more than half surveyed would support a bond at that number.
"I think it's time for us to step forward,' board vice-president Kenneth Mintz said. "Yes we are ready to do this, ready to roll up our sleeves."
In his argument for raising the bond number, Marvel said he didn't feel there would be much of a drop off of support if the bond was closer to $300 million, therefore why send out another survey that would cost $14,000?
"The difference between 260 and 290 is going to be miniscule," he said, regarding support. "I want to push for a number as close to, but not over, $300 million as possible."
The other board members felt otherwise. The board told Marvel that if it decided that it truly wanted to go above $260 million, a tracking poll would be necessary. But the support of a bond north of $260 million wasn't there.
Now, with the price tag set, the board's next move is to determine exactly what will get packed into that $260 million.
The staff, along with the Facilities Advisory Committee, have identified and prioritized a list of projects equaling nearly $400 million. The board is now tasked with determining what projects will be included in that $260 million mark and what will be left off.
"Now we have to determine what is above and below the line," Mintz said.
Invest in the new education paradigm. Public charters, schools without unions. Schools that reward the good teachers and terminate the bad. Leverage on-line classes taught by world class teachers. Don't be fooled by the district's claim of "we are the best". They are the best only when cared with other schools with far less prosperous families, crippled by the same teacher's union. When compared with private schools, and those in Shanghai, Singapore, and 23 other countries round the world our schools are far from good. Adding debt for our children to repay only serves to further entrench the existing dis functional system.
The school board does what the teacher's union and school management tells them to do. They are ill informed, part timers that serve as merely a rubber stamp for the "system". As a comparison, think about Congress. Most of them are lackey's for the lobyiests. The obbyists write the laws, Congress rubber stamps them in exchange for campaign contributions. It's the same thing with the school board. They have no idea what they are doing beyond agreeing with the superintendent. If they listened to the voters, they'd be talking about firing the bottom 5% of teachers every year. Changing union work rules, and measuring students vs world class competition. As many in the "body politic" say. It's time to take our country back. Away from the unions, lobbyists etc.
Are you suggesting that the "LEADER" of the school board is wrong for saying "hey...let's go for $300 million it's only a little more than $270?" That's the same logic that saddled citizens and our children with $30 million of solar panel debt that will only pay out if your electric bill is double what it is today 3 years from now. Think about it....do you really think electric rates will double in the next 3 years. Falling oil prices, natural gas etc. Of course they will double if the state proceeds with PG&E to buy high cost "green" energy, and forces a carbon tax on the populace. Will the last person paying taxes in California turnoff the lights when they leave?
And I was dead set against the solar installations. Scroll back through those threads...
I was totally kidding (tongue in cheek) when I implied it was unreasonable to expect the School Board President to "go fo $300 million because what the heck it's only a bit more than $260 million, and voters will never understand the difference". Same logic applies to the ROI on solar panels that depend on electric rates doubling over three years. (what are they smoking.......MJ...or something more potent "the green gospel". These guys on the school boards are lackies and idiots. They have no problem piling on debt, to build more buildings, but totally lack the stones to fix what's really wrong (teacher's union, lack of pay for performance; inability to fire bad teachers; testing that compares against other academic midgets (public schools). Sorry for my lousy sense of humor. I totally agree with you RW Cook.
1. Has the developer paid all the cash for Dougherty...or is the developer making payments on a bond. I suspect the money is paying off a bond, that the SRVSD is on the hook for if the developer goes bust...I'm just guessing here...anyone know? 2. Even if their is no risk to the school district; the homeowners were charged for the school, and therefore overpaid for their homes in order to fund the "edifice".
http://www.getcoachfactoryoutlets.org/ Coach Factory outlet http://www.atcoachoutletsonline.org/ Coach Outlet http://www.saleincoachoutlets.net/ Coach Outlet Online http://www.pradabag-outlet.org/ prada outlet http://www.louisvuittonhandbag-outlets.org/ Louis Vuitton Handbags http://www.getcoachfactoryoutlets.org/ Coach Factory http://www.atcoachoutletsonline.org/ Coach Outlet Online http://www.pradabag-outlet.org/ prada bags http://www.saleincoachoutlets.net/ Coach Outlet