The suit against Cave Creek Unified by the Goldwater Institute brings with it a boat load of irony.
In this case Goldwater is arguing that,
…both the legislature and the school board have violated the contract between the voters and the school district.
Well, Cave Creek Unified was the lead plaintiff in the Prop 301 lawsuit. The case was even titled, Cave Creek Unified School District et al. v. State of Arizona. In this case the Arizona School Board Association, the driver behind the suit, claims,
We are asking the court to rule on the real meaning of Prop. 301 and, in doing so, uphold the will of Arizona voters.
Cave Creek Unified et al. lost the lawsuit when a judge ruled that the Prop 301 language was a suggestion, not a specific appropriation. Seems in the Jayne Freidman v. Cave Creek Unified et al. case that when the district says we will spend x dollars this item, that would be considered a specific appropriation.
Even today, '”more money is the solution” education supporters are claiming that the cuts to education are ignoring the will of the voters who passed the 1 cent sales tax increase and to protect the First Things First funding. Let’s see if these groups rally behind the Goldwater Institute to help uphold the will of the voters in Cave Creek.
Four years ago (or is it more now) some members of the long-range planning committee asked, since it was obvious that the original intention of the bond no longer made logical or fiscal sense, why CCUSD could not put the bond use back out for vote. At that time there were arguments that the election would "be expensive" and there was no confidence that the voters would support CCUSD in the change. If it was honestly presented wouldn't it make sense to voters?
ReplyDeleteIf CCUSD had put the changes in bond use out for public vote, they would have been pro-active and good stewards of the money. Unfortunately, they decided not to approach an election.
Recently, Mr. Warren was pretty excited about his work with the legislature on this plan that would now allow CCUSD to spend the money however they wanted...It seemed rather dubious when he explained it.
Obviously others believe it to be questionable as well. Hmmm...would the election four years ago have cost more than the current lawsuit? Also...would we, if the change in bond use had not passed, be saving lots of $$ in interest that could go toward stemming the growth in class size, etc.?
What did this decision do to the already tenuous future of bonds and overrides in the district? So many times people ask...why doesn't the community support our kids?
Because of decisions like these and people at the top. Did they have bad intentions? No...they really wanted to help the kids, but instead of doing it the right way, the not-always-easy way, they tried to circumvent process and have caused much more harm than good--possibly extensive harm into the future.