And so it starts. The levy failed yesterday and now some news outlets and public comment sites are reacting with questions and some frustration. The Spokesman Review ran an article today, stating “This year, a group of self-styled watchdogs, led by political activists Mary Souza and Dan Gookin, rallied voters through mailings and Web postings to reject the levy, pointing to the 2002 levy as evidence the district can’t be trusted with taxpayer money.” That part is true, except the mailings, but there’s much more to the story.
Our goal was not simply to defeat the levy, it was to demand the school district revamp their process and offer reasonable accountability to the voters before the next levy. And there were many citizens who felt the same and worked to get information out to voters. On a different public web site, a commenter today said some negative things about us but then agreed that “Being sold an idea to tear down a 50 year old brick building and build something brand new simply based upon someones opinion rather than solid numbers, that is foolish. That is head in the sand thinking. If this school board would have done their homework correctly and laid out both sides, rebuilding vs tearing down, in a manner that successful organizations do this levy would have passed. Calling people who want the district to be run in a professional manner misinformed is insulting.”
So my point is this: We did a good thing in standing against this levy. Now let’s work with the school district in any way we can to help as they create a system of due diligence that will both honor the taxpayers and fulfill the needs of the district.
You did a good thing! If the school board and the administration will now reach out to the critics then the children will get the facilities needed. I greatly value public education and would hope that the school board would reach out to the critics, open up the process and come up with a priority list of building projects based on public input and needs. The board should have seen this defeat coming as they were long warned that lack of trust would eventually hurt the kids. It is time for them to work with the critics and get the kids what they really need. The in-coming superindentent of school has a golden opportunity to work with Mary, build trust, and do what is right for the kids. Most people I talked to said it was very difficult for them to vote against the levy, but the lack of trust and accountability of the CdA School drove them to vote NO. Hazel, if you are reading this….please, please reach out to Mary Souza..this will really help the kids! A levy with the critics blessing will surely pass.
Comment by Mama Bear — May 22, 2008 @ 7:21 am
The recession and high energy prices,along with a levy that would have been costly to taxpayers, helped to defeat it.
Comment by kageman — May 22, 2008 @ 10:29 am
Hazel was quoted in the CDA Press today: “We’re going to go into listening mode…”
I admire Hazel for finally waking up, but we’ll see whether or not she’s really willing to listen, let alone reach out to the “critics.” One step in the right direction will be the removal of that damn timer during public comments. Maybe then Trustee chair Edie Brooks will look at the person speaking and not at the timer.
Comment by Dan — May 22, 2008 @ 11:50 am
I have a question. How do people feel about attending the education corridor program at NIC tonight? Is there any sense to going and expecting any kind of a balanced presentation? Will any of the hard questions be answered? Will a a high attendance be seen as a positive or a negative? Likewise what about low attendance? I can see it now. If attendance is low the claim will be either that no one really cares about the proposal or else that the general populace supportive.
Comment by CdACanuck — May 22, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
I have conflict, otherwise I would be interested in hearing what they have to say. My concern is over their sense of urgency mixed with too much “I don’t know” factor. That might be confirmed tonight, which makes me question not the project but the urgency.
The program is merely an exercise. There will be no other debate, as hinted at in the press. Next Wednesday the board will most likely elect to take foregone for this project, plowing ahead into the unknown with serious questions about how this impacts education in North Idaho.
Comment by Dan — May 22, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
dan wrote: The program is merely an exercise. There will be no other debate. that much seems true. but could not the same thing be said about last weeks event? one side aired their opinions and concerns and tonight the other side will give their position? and then the dialog can begin.
Comment by reagan — May 22, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Regan, last week’s forum was quite different in its structure. There were nine panelists: 2 were known supporters of the Corridor, 2 were neutral resource-type people, 2 had views that were unknown beforehand and 3 had known concerns or opposition to the project. Questions were allowed in three different segments: Moderator to panel, audience to panel and panelists to each other. The audience and panel questions were spontaneous, not written or filtered in any way. There was a floor microphone and audience members simply lined up and asked away. They were also allowed follow-up comments or clarifications as needed.
Tonight’s forum is all about control: Control the message and control the questions. I would not oppose the structure of tonight’s forum except that the NIC Board plans to move forward with the purchase of the land at NEXT WEEK’s Board meeting. Doesn’t leave any time for “dialog”, does it?
Comment by mary — May 22, 2008 @ 3:03 pm