Ed. Note: This is the first post from our newest member Beechcroft. As always feel free to give us your feedback in the comments. No comment will be censored unless it is profane or defamatory.
Here we go again! That's right, the CCUSD governing board has listened to a presentation by its Financial Feasibility Committee recommending another override this coming November! This time, it is an M&O override, totaling $25-30 million, over seven years.
Didn't the district voter just approve an M&O override less than three years ago (in May 2007)? This 2007 override will provide full funding for two more school years (2010-11 and 2011-12) and then partial funding for two additional years (2012-13 and 2013-14) after that. Thus, district taxpayers are obligated to pay for the current M&O override for four more years after this current school year.
Did district administrators, who established this committee in early 2009, forget to inform its Financial Feasibility Committee about the 2007 M&O override or did this committee ignore this information? One wonders!
The Financial Feasibility Committee had indicated that it is composed of community members, faith representatives, CCUSD staff and CCUSD parents. Of the 16 core members, seven are CCUSD staff members or parents of CCUSD children. Another six include a former CCUSD governing board member, members of CCUSD political action committees and advocacy groups as well as members of CCUSD planning groups. Only three of the 16 core committee members appear to have little or no apparent affiliation with CCUSD. Who represents the 12-15,000 family households (with no children in CCUSD schools) that pay a majority of the property taxes to support CCUSD? One wonders about the independence of thought of this committee!
Is the Financial Feasibility Committee an advocacy group? One also wonders! In their February 2010 meeting, the committee received a memorandum from a political consulting firm on "How to win an election in CCUSD". Later, in their presentation to the CCUSD governing board in early March, the Financial Feasibility Committee recommended establishment of the political action group (committee?), the need for $30,000 in funding for a get-out-the-vote program, support by at least 20 committed volunteers for an March-November voter approval campaign, etc. The district taxpayer may well ask: Is this CCUSD administration-sponsored committee is an override advocacy group or an independent advisory panel supposedly investigating various financial alternatives?
Beechcroft
If they think they can close DAMS, propose ridiculous and costly changes to curriculum and school configuration and then ask the voters for money they are sorely mistaken and in for a rude awakening. They have not been successful at getting bonds passed because they didn't ask for what they needed or what their constituents had responded in surveys that they wanted.
ReplyDeleteWhen told that voters wanted additions and improvements to the current high school they went ahead with plans for a second high school. After voters said they did not support k-6 or k-8 they are going ahead with plans for a district wide conversion anyway.
They have used all monies available to them to build, build and build at the sacrifice of providing support for what they already had. The existing schools were told that their time for improvements would come after everything was bright and shiny at the new schools.
Well now their time has indeed come. Payback for being patient and trusting that the administration had everything under control is closure of DAMS. And for those of you thinking that the closure of DAMS will save the rest of our schools think again. Today DAMS tomorrow BMES and then possibly DWES. If our district continues to put age of building above enrollment numbers and cost of maintenance above providing educational opportunities to all of its students that is exactly what the future holds. Their attitude is who needed all those schools to the north anyway? Nobody lives up there.
They are more worried about attracting students to the south in the SUSD and PVUSD districts than caring for the students within their boundaries. If they were really only interested in attracting new students to the district they would have realized that there are parents driving their children from New River, Desert Hills and even Anthem to attend DAMS. Those are the students that they would be more likely to attract.
Parents living on the boundaries to SUSD and PVUSD have already chosen the school district they prefer and because we can no longer boast the lowest student/teacher ratios we probably will continue to bleed to the south. Get over it and take care of the families who have chosen to stay in CCUSD!
Ask for what you need not for what you want. Stop placating special interests at every turn. Go back to basics. Determine your sole purpose to teach the students of CCUSD to read, write and do arithmetic to the best of your ability. The rest is just frosting and can be done away with permanently or temporarily as the students and families of CCUSD see fit. Dividing our efforts and fund-raising amongst too many specialties has pulled us apart and will continue to rip at our seems.
It would be nice to have Dr. Burdick stop blaming the parents for the overrides etc for not passing. If there is no confidence with the parents (and employees) or regular Joe's and Jane's, that is the District's fault. Build confidence, listen to your parents and the votes will come. Til then you will get my No vote.
ReplyDelete