I can't let a Park Hill School Board of Education post go without a reference to the infamous Fred "Yosemite" Sanchez seat so I'll get it out of the way early.....
Sticking to my incumbency policy, Bart Klein and Janice Bolin deserve another term which leaves me a choice for the third spot. While I think Scott Monsees has a great resume, I am supporting Jim Dunn for the Park Hill School Board.
Why? Long time readers are probably wondering if I've lost my mind. I've always coined an "open letter to Jim Dunn" blog post in my head where I was going to challenge him to do something other than write letters to the editor and he is doing it. I commend him for moving his position into a chance to do something about it. I assume the bond vote is going to pass and we need someone to question the spending. I'm sorry Mr. Monsees but maybe you can try again in 2018. I wish you well.
This Tuesday, I'll be filling in the circles for Janice Bolin, Bart Klein, and Jim Dunn.
Now about the "no tax increase" bond. I still fall back on my position that I do not think a third Park Hill High School is a good idea. I know the messaging says that patrons say they want it but just because my kids want to eat cookies for breakfast, potato chips for lunch, and ice cream for dinner do I let them.
The bond is too much and on things I haven't understood the need for. Maybe if the board meetings were streamed and I could watch online when I have chance, I could see the presentations and reasoning for spending money on a new bus facility and new admin support facility. It's always more expensive to build new when an existing asset could be purchased and modified.
However, the architects or planners hired to look at the school district's needs wouldn't get a lot of work out of reuse so of course everything has to be new and bigger. It's a downfall to hiring consultants to do planning then turning right around and having them secure the designing. This is common in all governments and needs to change.
In fairness, in response to requests school staff has reached out and asked me to give them a call. However, in March we've had to deal with a kid in the hospital for days, and ER visit, a trip back to see ill family in Illinois, and I've been a tad preoccupied with things at the day job dealing with a rather complex problem. No one is going to answer the phone at 9:30 PM.
I'm sure it will pass and I'm know my kids are going to benefit from it but I'm voting no. As soon as these new facilities are built, guess what? We'll need new principals, assistant principals, assistants to the assistant principals, and a whole bunch of other non-teaching positions. Put the trailers in, move them around, and see how this housing market recovery holds out. We've had pent up demand explode due to artificially induced low interest rates but will it sustain? Don't mortgage the future right now.
Maybe I'm just sour because the last school board meeting I went to, I had to listen to some adminicrat babble for a half hour on statistics that measured nothing and added no value all while I was wondering why we are paying someone to make pretty graphs and waste my time.
I know this is going to upset some of you but based on what I observe, I have to vote no. In 2014, I was out in full force for the FLIP levy because it was going into learning. However, I just think this bond is too much and I'm very sour on spending public money on building facilities.