Perhaps the No on the bond should be seen as a vote of “no confidence” in the current school board. I voted No because this bond appeared to be a giant Band-Aid, covering wounds that only major surgery will repair.
How did the buildings get into such a state of disrepair after years of giant budgets? What was the $17.184 million allocated in 2012 for roof, window and other repairs used for? Why was the bond essentially just a plan to bring failing overcrowded buildings up to a minimal acceptable standard rather than a vision for making the district innovative and ahead of the standard? Why was the Community Advisory Board only created late in the game when the proposal was essentially done and the vote already scheduled? Where was the detail in the proposal, 3D printers, technology centers, science labs that will stand up for 20 years and beyond? Why aren’t the expensive redundancies caused by running two high schools as completely separate entities ever addressed? No creativity, no innovation, no thoughts of reducing and modernizing energy usage, consolidating resources, no enhancements of arts or science education, athletic fields that are worse than any school anywhere. I would rather triple the bond and pay $1,000 extra in taxes if a Realtor could show my house in 10 years and tell a prospective buyer that the school system has things that they can’t get anywhere else. I’ve had three children go through the schools, both North and South. I’m sad to say that with all three, the school district failed them in some very different but significant ways. I encourage the school board to revisit the bond; I encourage them to make more use of expertise either in the community or from outside consultants. We all want great schools. This bond did nothing to move that vision forward.
—Maura Rutkin
Read “2017 School Bond Referendum Defeated” and “Concerned About Bond Failure.”
