Monday, March 06, 2006
The question of whether to put a bond measure on the June ballot is going to be considered again, this Wednesday, by the Monrovia School Board. At Monday's meeting Board President Clare Chesley said that any member of the community can put an issue on the agenda, so - as a member of the community - she did it.
~ brad@sacklunch.net
Now, whether the proposal to put a bond on the June ballot will get enough "yes" votes on Wednesday is an interesting question. I'd say Clare Chesley and Bryan Wong would rather be strung up by their toenails than vote no. So that's two votes in favor. Then there's Ed Gililland, who talked about how good facilities make it possible to recruit good teachers, and how you have to expect that you're going to pay back a lot more on a bond then just the principal. So he's in the yes column? Well... After saying that, he said his one concern is about whether the district could mount a "credible campaign" to get the bond passed. So I'm putting him in the "leaning yes" camp.
Member Chris Rich said he was concerned that he hadn't had time to fully digest the bond proposal and voted as he did partly because he hadn't had adequate time to really understand it. However, he also suggested that the district needed to focus on academics and getting a fairer share of school money from the state, and that maybe they could find a millionaire who'd like a science building named after him or her. Okay, I think I'll put Rich in the "leaning no" category.
Finally, Clarence Shaw. He said the district has four schools that are not making the federally mandated Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). I didn't quite get what this had to do with bonds, but whatever. Later, however, he said that he didn't think the no vote the last time the board voted on the matter was - as Chesley put it - an example of politics winning out. "I don't believe politics won out," he said. "I believe relationships won out." That comment suggests to me that he's leaning pretty strongly in the no direction.
Regarding the "politics won out" comment, that was - ahem - the mild part of Chesley's comments. She added that in the partnership between the district and city, "the truth needs to be central." But, she said, getting warmed up, "The mayor's remarks were disengenuous at best." She said Mayor Rob Hammond told her that he would actively campaign against the bond measure before there was any discussion about the financing method. She said the city has "actively meddled in matters that are the board's responsibility." She finished by saying she hoped the city would support the bond, "or at least not actively campaign against it."
Also, it was a public hearing, so quite a few people had their say. One couple objected to the method of financing the bond, which they felt would cost Monrovians too much, but most speakers told the board they wanted the bond to go on the ballot. One PTA president said the reason she didn't show up at the meeting where the bond was originally discussed was because, "I didn't think I'd have to defend my children against you."
Ouch!
Another parent said she wanted the measure on the ballot and "I don't wanna wait for no mayor and I don't wanna wait for no library."
Ah yes, the library.
Former board member Bruce Carter said that the city had decided not to put its library bond measure on the June ballot, so for those who believed that two bond measures would be too much, or too confusing, that problem no longer exists.
Okay, if you're interested in this topic, Wednesday night's for you. The board will vote again on whether to put the bond on the June ballot.
One last comment: Superintendent Louise Taylor gave a pretty good presentation of the whole bond situation. She started off by showing a slide of MHS and saying how beautiful it is on the outside. The problem, she said, is on the inside. This led me - naturally - to assume that the next thing I'd be seeing would be pictures from the inside of rusty pipes and water stained ceilings. No pictures. Well, alright, but if this measure goes on the ballot I really want good evidence of why it is necessary (and post it on the Web) and of what's wrong with the current science building. Repeatedly telling me that it was built in 1927 doesn't impress me. Show me what's wrong with it. Describe what could be done with new facilities that can't as easily be done with the current facilities. Also, I'm sure - as some have said - that new facilities would be beautiful, but $37 million is an awful lot of money for art. I'm happy if it's beautiful, but I'm not really interested in buying art; I want to know what functional improvements that money will buy. Don't get me wrong, I think I'm in favor of this bond, but ya gotta show me.
Also on the Web at www.monroviaschoollink.com
Comments:
Post a Comment
