The school levy election is tomorrow, the NIC meeting on the Ed. Corridor is Thursday and the local primary elections are next Tuesday. Is that enough to talk about or could there possibly be more?
I hear the dirt bikes are ripping up the face of Canfield mountain, now that the snow is finally gone, and the noise is driving the neighbors crazy.
Any comments, questions?
Down in the Fort Grounds today, I’m hearing a sound I won’t hear again . . . forever: The last train is pulling out of the Stimson Lumber Mill. It’s really blowing its horn, again and again, like it’s saying farewell.
Comment by Dan — May 19, 2008 @ 10:32 am
Does anyone find the verbiage on the levy ballot unusual…another “out” for the District in terms of spending the $ in the way they see fit:
OFFICIALB ALLOT
School District 271
KootenaCi ountYl,d aho
SCHOOLP LANTF ACILITIESL EVYE LECTION
MaY 20, 2008
SHALLT HE BOARDO F TRUSTEESO F COEURD ‘ALENES CHOOLD ISTRICT2 71,
KOOTENAIC OUNTY,I DAHO,B E AUTHORIZEDT O CERTIFYA SCHOOL PLANT
FACILITIESR ESERVEF und Levyi n the followinga mountsb eginningJ uly 1,2008′
Fiscayl ear2 009,$ 15, 528,154a’,n d FiscaYl ear2 010,$ 15,528,155fo; r the purposeo f
allowingt he Districtt o improves chools ites;t o accumulatefu nds for and to build a
schoolh ouseo r schoolhouseosr otherb uildingo r buildingst;o furnisha nd equipa ny
buildingo r buildingsi,n cludinga ll lightingh, eatingv, entilatioann d sanitationfa cilities
and appliancesn ecessaryto maintaina nd operateb uildingso f the Districta; nd to repay
loans from commerciall endingi nstitutionse xtendedt o pay for the constructiono f
school plant facilities( in accordancew ith ldaho Code 33-804a nd 33-804A) Said
School plant Facilities Reserue Fund Levy shall be approved only if fifty-five (55)
percent of the electors voting in said election are in favor of the levy. The
purpose of the levy shall be to construct a new middle school building to replace
Lakes Middle School; provide for demolition of the existing Lakes Middle School
building; construct a new elementary school; purchase computers and related
technology, instructionally related technology and infrastructure for all District
schools; meet safety and energy conservation needs of the District; and, allow
the district to acquire or purchase future school sites.
INSTRUCTIONTSO VOTERS:
To vote on the foregoing proposition, please mark a cross (x) opposite the words,
,’For School plant Facilities Levy? YES” or “For School Plant Facilities Levy? NO” on
your ballot according to the way you desire to vote on the question’
FOR SCHOOLP LANTF ACILITIESL EVY?
FOR SCHOOLP LANTF ACILITIESL EVY?
lf vou bv mistake or accident mark, tear,
ioine e{ection judge and obtain another
YES
NO
deface or otherwise mutilate this ballot, return it
ballot.
E
n
Comment by cda_foodies — May 19, 2008 @ 10:41 am
To cda_foodies: I’m assuming you’re making fun of the ballot by the erratic spacing on your comment, but if you didn’t intend to have it read that way, just let me know and I can fix it. That being said, you’re totally right that the wording on the ballot IS a problem. The ballot does not stipulate any specific dollar amounts for any of the advertised projects. It mentions Lakes Middle school but has no costs or amounts listed. The squishy legal language on the ballot will allow the school district to use the money for any building, equipment or land purchase they wish.
Comment by mary — May 19, 2008 @ 10:56 am
cda_foodies,
I am concerned that School District 271’s wording of its School Plan Facilities Levy Election ballot may confuse and mislead voters.
The SD 271 ballot levy proposition has two parts. The first part is the “question.” The second part is the “purpose.” The “Instructions to Voters” seems to clearly instruct voters to vote, “…according to the way you desire to vote on the question.” Yet the “Instructions to Voters” opening clause reads, “To vote on the foregoing proposition,…” Is the “foregoing proposition” limited only to the “question” part, or does it include the “purpose” part as well? If it includes the precisely worded “purpose,” then a broader interpretation of the “question” part should not be permitted.
My opinion is that voters should not need to be attorneys in order to vote. All the wording in a ballot proposition must be consistent and clear. That is, the “question” part must not allow for a different interpretation of the voters’ desires than the “purpose” part. Voters in a voting booth should be neither required nor expected to make fine-line distinctions between a legal wording and a plain English wording on the same ballot proposition.
Comment by Bill — May 19, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Re the “levy ballot”, I “copied and pasted” the ballot and what’s posted is the manner in which the Internet transferred it to the OpenCdA site? I know of no other way to transfer it?
Point #2: I have spoken to 3 people this a.m. (Monday, 5/19) who had requested absentee ballots and as of today (after their mail has been delivered!), NO ballots??? So, unless they are totally on top of this, they will not be able to vote? Thoughts?
Comment by cda_foodies — May 19, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
I’ve added an Events Calendar to the upper right list of thingies on this web site. Just point the mouse at an event and you’ll see more detailed information. If you have an event to add, e-mail Bill, Mary, or myself with the information. We’d be happy to promote your event. (E-mail contacts are found in the Pages>Contact item, also in the upper right.)
Comment by Dan — May 19, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Events Calendar…
Nice add!!!!
Comment by Damn Yankee — May 19, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
cda_foodie: I tried. I got County Clerk Dan English to come on here (“Get Out and Vote!”) and tell us about the election, but I forgot the county doesn’t supervise this levy vote. The schools do the whole thing themselves. They write the ballot, supervise the voting places, collect the votes and count them too! You might check out Dan English’s comments about election compacting. It sounds like an issue whose time has come.
Comment by mary — May 19, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
Dan–I love the Events Calendar. Especially because you can mouse over them to see the event, then click on them to see the details like time and place. Nicely done, thanks.
Comment by mary — May 19, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
back to the original comment: dirt bike riders have used canfield mountain for years, why is it an issue this year? new neighbors?
Comment by reagan — May 19, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
Hello,
This is intended for who ever has the job of putting information on the events calendar on this page. I’m glad to see the primary election date is listed but the time is actually from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
It’s at the option of each county clerk to open the polls at either 7 or 8 a.m. We moved to 7 a.m. several years ago so that it would be more convenient for people who want to vote on the way to work. Also, Spokane County voted at 7 a.m. (now they are all by mail) and since we get covered by the Spokane media stations there was always some confusion for our voters so we just took advantage of the option to start voting at 7 a.m.
However, it makes for a very, very long day for our poll workers who have to get there early to set up and then tear down etc. after the polls close at 8 p.m. So remember to vote but also remember to say a few kind words to your friends and neighbors who work at the polls. They are the real unsung heroes of our elections system.
Comment by Dan English — May 19, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
I believe that motorized dirt bikes are prohibited on Canfield in city limits. The city does have a noise ordinance.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 20, 2008 @ 7:38 am