I think the district’s inconsistent statements about the effect of bond passage are at least partly responsible for the fact that members of the public seem to hold different understandings of the issue. For example, when I tweeted the article about the Minnesota school district that closed schools after telling voters it would renovate them, I quickly heard from one bond supporter who told me that “In Iowa the bond language is a legal document that cannot be altered after the fact by any admin or board,” and from another who told me that “It was clearly [our] board’s intent to have flexibility.”
Moreover, even if voters discount the district’s more enthusiastic statements (“A GO bond locks in the plan!”), they still do not have clear statements of the district’s position on several important questions, such as:
- After the bond passes, can the district completely drop a project from the list of projects in the ballot language?
- The governing statute says that if the voters pass the proposal, the district “shall issue” the bonds. Does that mean that if the bond passes, the district is legally required to issue bonds in the stated total amount ($191 million), even if it might have some freedom to reallocate the money among the listed projects?
- Does it mean that the district would have to issue the full amount of bonds, even if the legislature extends the SAVE sales tax before we need the money? (The current SAVE statute allows districts to pay off bonds with the sales tax revenue, but there could be significant transactions costs if we’re required to issue all the bonds first.)
Even if the district’s answer were “we don’t know, because the law is unclear,” that in itself would be informative. Readers: Maybe one of you will have more success in getting publicly shareable responses to those questions than I have. (I don’t feel free, as an individual board member, to share information that has come to the board in the form of advice from the district’s counsel.)
Finally: What is the cumulative effect of the district’s statements on this issue over the last nine months? Is the district being sufficiently candid? Is it being sufficiently careful about the public expectations that it’s generating? Do its statements, collectively, make you more confident that the district will treat the public respectfully as it moves forward after bond passage? Do they make you more willing to entrust the district with $191 million?
15 comments:
Plans the Board has changed its mind on or not been able to give a single answer for at the last minute, in my recent memory:
1. Playgrounds will/won't/maybe will be accessible to kids in wheelchairs
2. Hoover will be knocked down for [sorry we've been chloroformed and can't answer today]
3. Principals sending out letters on behalf of the Yes campaign is and is not okay
4. Bell schedule, it's definitely this, or maybe it's that
5. Seclusion boxes are not seclusion, neither are they boxes, except they're both
6. Everything is fine except the US civil rights officers say it's not
6a. Everything is fine except the state says it's not
7. It's okay/not okay/let's drop the subject when it comes to criticizing board and admin members out loud
8. Here are four thousand plans for redrawing district boundaries, here's the one we'll go with, no here's the one we'll go with, no *here's* the one we'll go with
9. Roosevelt kids will be kept together with their teachers -- or not
10. We need to put air conditioning in Hoover so it can be nice and cool when we knock it down
11. We're going to sell Roosevelt and be rich, except we won't
12. We absolutely can't use Roosevelt for humans, except when it's TREC, which we may or may not keep
More?
I do not think it is possible that any of the people insisting that the FMP will remain essentially as it is are speaking in good faith. I don't see how that can be true, given this board and admin's track record. I understand we live in a time in which politicians have made a lot of hay by just repeating nonsense until other people repeat it too, but I do not see how anyone even half awake and not simply wishful can believe that these people are sincere.
Yes the district can drop a project if the bond passes.
There are probably some that should be dropped, but they must be including them to get some yes votes before they are dropped. Just like the Minnesota article. Must be something they teach at Superintendent Academy.
That's probably true.
I wonder where else it's happened.
Oh look, here's Dallas with a switcheroo:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/garland/2016/09/23/voters-swimmers-feel-betrayed-garland-isd-pushes-natatorium-back-2019
A Utah district:
https://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=19405367&title=alleged-bond-backtracking-leaves-canyons-parents-feeling-betrayed
San Benito (no, really, it's not for athletic facilities):
https://sanbenito.com/2015/11/21/community-board-betrayed-by-the-bond/
San Antonio (this one's a doozy):
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/A-major-betrayal-of-public-trust-2456759.php
an aside on how districts have gotten good and scammed by the banks shoveling money at them: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620
Weird $90M no-vote "second lien" bond debt scheme in Little Rock:
https://www.facebook.com/abetterlrsd/
Kind of alarming: capital obligation bonds disguised as GO bonds in California, costs district 10x what they thought they were borrowing -- hello, $1 billion:
https://patch.com/california/poway/poway-unified-school-district-trustees-betrayed-our-trust
That was some seriously frightening reading.
This bond must be stopped. Make them bond for specific projects for a two year period. There are places that still do it that way.
Capital appreciation bonds, not capital obligation, sorry.
Apparently there's talk now about how shiny new schools will increase our property values, which is the whole argument for capital appreciation bonds. It's worth asking the board (and candidates) directly whether they would entertain using this kind of bond issue, by this name or any other. If they say they don't understand the issue and that they have to get back to you, follow up early and often. A response delayed until after the bond vote is not acceptable.
Capital appreciation bonds, not capital obligation, sorry.
Apparently there's talk now about how shiny new schools will increase our property values, which is the whole argument for capital appreciation bonds. It's worth asking the board (and candidates) directly whether they would entertain using this kind of bond issue, by this name or any other. If they say they don't understand the issue and that they have to get back to you, follow up early and often. A response delayed until after the bond vote is not acceptable.
United Technologies Corp encouraging new school infrastructure by labeling it "green."
Center for Green Schools connected to U.S. Green Building Council got influx of cash from United Technologies Corp. End result is more school infrastructure.
Post a Comment