JSR911 says...

What a shame that this has become the focus. None of the articles or comments I have read ever address the real issue. By spending this money and increasing the tax forever, do the children in the St. Joseph School District receive a better education? When we made the improvements and the additions to the schools a few years ago did test scores improve? No. If the education that children received was better this community would grow. New buildings is not what perspective new residents look at....they look at test scores and median income! Both are low in the St. Joseph School District and no amount of new buildings and forever taxes will fix it! Stay focused on education. Our children deserve better in every building in every school in this district. Please leave the link of the website that addresses the real problem!

April 1, 2009 at 12:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_O says...

I really do wish that I could see some indication that the children would learn better in new schools, but I can not, I honestly don't think that the majority of the kids could care less about new schools and having to get up earlier and leave home earlier just to be bussed across town. I honestly believe that it is the Staff that is Really wanting this to happen. I can't see how these schools are completely worn out when Humbolt is 50 years older than ANY other school in our district, and has never been mentioned.
Does Humbolt have it's original Boilers? and if it has been changed then why can we not do this to the Other 100 yr old schools? I woulld bet that the 100 year old schools could last Another 50 yrs. Like Humbold with a little TLC, and I really don't see the restrooms being a big problem, my Church has 3500 members and there are only 7 stalls in the mens rooms, and 6 urinals,, I can't say about the Ladies. In my opinion, Webster has plenty of room for an addition, and for Neeley, why don't they purchase the former St. Patricks school, I drove by there a while back and it looks like it could work very well but I will admit that I don' know anything about the old St. Pats. And as far as the levy being needed for operating funds, What did they operate on PRE-2004, when they ask for the TEMPORARY levy? No one can explain WHERE THAT funding went. It is to late NOW, this close to the election but I would bet that some of the very things I have mentioned are going to result in a lot of NO and NO votes. Every one of the concerns that I have ask here, I have ask on 3 OTHER occasions, with Never a Single response, I wonder WHY?

April 1, 2009 at 4:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

razorback5 says...

What has this town EVER done to the Graves family except for support their political aspirations and send them to Washington? Sam Graves better step up and say something soon. As for Todd Graves and his crew- they need to stay out of the business of telling us how to run our town. I am sure there are plenty of houses for sale. They should move here if they "care" so much. I, for one, am disgusted.

(Steve_O try the district's website for the fact sheets that address your questions. They are very long and very dry reading- nothing salacious- so you might get bored. But the facts clearly indicated that the district doesn't frivolously waste money. Otherwise, there would be no reserve.)

April 1, 2009 at 6:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gates507 says...

Steve O-You have made it very clear that you are voting no on both issues due to restraints of your personal finances, so possibly people are trying to sway those people who they think they have a chance to sway to a yes vote. However, I will try.

Yes, Humboldt is old, I don't know about the boiler, but I believe that the district looked at many factors when trying to right size. They looked at the school population, the age of the building, and the location of other schools in the area. Webster and Noyes are closing as elementary schools because they have a small school population and there are other schools that can absorb their school population and still be considered neighborhood schools. Hall and Neely are closing and building a new school because the buildings are old, and one new school can accommodate those two school populations.

Bathrooms-Yes your church may have similar accomadations as far as restrooms, however, I am assuming that hundreds of people do not use the church for 7+ hours a day, 5 days a week, that is why restrooms may not be an issue at your church and it is in a school.

Better education-Part of providing a quality education, which I personally think SJSD is doing, is looking at many different factors. Factors that need to be addressed all the time are: Curriculum and instruction, safety, fiscal stewardship, buildings and ground, professional development. I am sure that I left some things out. I agree that buildings do not guarantee a better education, the teachers are the key to that, but buildings are a part of the overall picture. Buildings do have a factor in the equation.

Neely and Webster Additions-Both of these schools are landlocked, parking is not great, the playgrounds have no green space, and the current facilities are not the greatest. Could they continue using them, remodel them, I guess they could, but at some point building new should also be a consideration. I believe the time is now. Let's not wait until we have 5, 10, or 15 buildings at 100+ years old. Let's begin the rebuilding process now.

Levy funding-I believe there have been articles about funding from the district financial officer, Janet Pullen. I don't find it necessary to repeat the information she has given. I don't think the problem is that the question hasn't been answered, I think you don't like the answer, which is your right.

Vote yes twice, for the children and citizens of St. Joseph!

April 1, 2009 at 6:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

KateSacramento says...

JSR - People are not getting off topic. We have a right to know who these people are and why they are trying dictate how St. Joseph will progress (or in this case not progress). If our own elected officials (paid with our tax dollars) cannot support the progression of a city through tax dollars then we have a problem.

Please remember that this brings hundreds of jobs to our area. The district has shown that they buy locally whenever possible. This money will rejuvenate our community aside from the fact that it is actually good for our children.

Many people keeping asking if the levy and bond makes kids smarter. I think they do. It keeps highly qualified teachers teaching in our community. Why would a teacher want to teach in a district if they knew they are at risk of losing their job every 5 years (as happens with sunset clauses). Nicer facilities not only attract teachers and businesses but provide a safer bus pick up (bus loop), playgrounds with grass, restrooms to service the amount of students in the building, enough outlets for today's technology and safety from mold and asbestos.

Vote yes, twice.

April 1, 2009 at 6:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Toughtimesfade says...

As a proud product of the St. Joseph school district and unfortunaltely due to a move I am a former citizen of St. Joseph, I have to say...Be proud of your school district. The programs that it offers are tremendous. The summer school program is wonderful, we do not have that here (still in MO). We do not have the parental support. I see very few faces I recognize when I go to my childs school activities. St. Joseph has had all day kindergarten for how many years? We are getting it next year. Your school district is a great one. As I travel around the state now I see how wondereful your district is. So St. Joseph get yourself in gear and get that tax passed. Your children deserve it. Come on St. Joseph, no matter what the children are our future we need to give them the opportunity to learn. GOOD LUCK !!!

April 1, 2009 at 6:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

AVM1234 says...

Absolutely children will learn better when there aren't 32 kids in a classroom -- as has been the case at Coleman this year. Test scores will increase when children are less distracted by overcrowding and the teacher has more time to spend with individual students. Children may stay healthier and miss less school in a facility that isn't contaminated with mold. Also, their sense of self worth my lift up and they will realize that contrary to what the "vote no twice for the children" think, they are just as valuable as the children in Liberty, Parkville or a number of surrounding communities that have told them so by providing adequate buildings. How can anyone still be arguing that we don't need new schools? The average age of a school building in St. Joseph is 70 years old. We are at one and a half the national average! The entire state of Maryland is under a state wide initiative to replace schools because their average age is 42 years old. Why are people in St. Joseph against anything that will brighten and enhance our community and for such a reasonable amount. I suggest your read the Reverand Chase Peeples' letter-- or any of the 9 pro letters to the editor --if you are still confused as to why this is a good thing for St. Joseph!

April 1, 2009 at 6:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

AVM1234 says...

Steve-O have you looked into the circuit breaker clause yet? From the dire straits you've described your financial situation to be, I believe you'd qualify to opt out of this tax.

April 1, 2009 at 6:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Trixie says...

I do not understand. Why does the American Democracy Alliance and Todd Graves want to hurt St. Joseph and the people who live here? Why would the people of St. Joseph listen to them when the ADA and Todd have "no dog in the hunt" here?

I cannot wait to vote Yes-Yes.

April 1, 2009 at 7:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sanity says...

unbelievable to think that the Graves family is in the middle of this. i've been around enough to know you can't tell me todd and sam graves don't know exactly what is going on. i'm disgusted and i hope the people of St. Joseph stand up and show these people they don't mess with us!

i also hope the St. Joseph community remembers this the next time Sam runs for office. this is disgusting.

April 1, 2009 at 7:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mamamia says...

i took mr. kozol's advice to truly go green and not even read this paper on my computer anymore. but when my friend called me this morning to tell me i wouldn't believe this article i had to get on and read it.

i am in shock that these people are behind this opposition. i agree with apple. where is a statement from congressman graves? and i don't mean some double talk statement that means nothing. i mean where is the congressman? even if he isn't a resident of st joe, is he in support to vote yes twice? apparently you don't have to be a resident of this community to weigh in on your support or opposition. todd graves and associates are examples of that.

has anyone googled the todd graves law firm mentioned in the article? you should there is another attorney there who is a missouri state senator. so the opposition has ties to the state legislature too? who else at the state house is involved? sounds to me with the fbi in jeff city yesterday asking questions about pay to play they should have asked some more questions on behalf of this community.

who is going to stand up and fight these people? if our own legislators don't support educational issues then who will? if this doesn't tick people off then i don't know what will.

and now i will turn my computer off.

April 1, 2009 at 7:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

10377586 says...

Looks like the Graves boys are right in the middle of this??? Didn't Sam promote education in some big press release / conference the other day? Guess he's done a 180 since or does he even have a clue what's happening? Either he is in on it which is bad or he doesn't have a clue what's going on which is also bad. Maybe we'd have been better with Kay Barnes, at least she might not meddle in local affairs. So did Todd Call Sam and say " can I borrow your campaign guy that knows all the tricks?" or what? Is someone going to look into this farther. Were these campaign people the same guys that worked AGAINST A TAX TO HELP AREA SENIOR CITIZENS?????? How much lower can you get than to work against senior citizens AND school children. Steve O has a legitimate reason he doesn't feel he can support the school issues and I respect his position and circumstances, I doubt seriously this bunch from Kansas City can say they can't afford it.

April 1, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lamplighter says...

I'm curious..is there a connection between the parties listed in the above article, a major contributor of funds from St. Louis and the issue of school vouchers? I think that the answers can be found by asking one of our local state representatives what he may know about this connection..and if he's contributed..
Some of you may ask what this has to do with the issues..well, it has everything to do with the issues..for example, at some point in the future will we see proposed legislation that actually takes away funding from our local districts and contributes to voucher programs..I believe the truth is still out there..and however you choose to vote..look towards the future..

April 1, 2009 at 7:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

heritage_sarahhochschwender says...

hahahahahaha. remember this little gem? guess who put this ad together?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROhNS...
as i recall graves beat barnes 60-37.

so, all you good upstanding citizens who voted against kay barnes in favor of the man from tarkio? how do you like your decision NOW?

i wonder if a certain person will be driving by kathleen fisher's home in stjomo? be sure to describe accurately how it looks so she can lose sleep at night.

all those bad people from out of town have some pretty outstanding educational and life backgrounds. whatever their reasoning, they might just know something the school board isn't revealing. on the other hand the graves campaign was vicious and insanely stupid ...... and in spite of its completely idiotic bent, graves was elected with a mandate. this is the kind of crud that has resonated for generations in this city. while i already voted, NO-NO i would see a single bright light in this misguided campaign if the city would throw the notion that the kind of campaign which is being used here is never shown to be viable again. the reasons to vote no-no are valid, and should have been used, but the voters here constantly back politicians who lower themselves into the gutter of politics and smear entire populations in their grab for power.

oh, i voted for barnes.

April 1, 2009 at 8:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rick says...

Political power people, it's all about political power.
There's big money to be made.
Property values aren't determined by taxes but by whether or not other people want to live in your city. The best jobs, the best salaries, the best people live where their children are a priority and they are safe from crime and vandalism and declining property values. One of the ways you insure your community against those things is by keeping up the investment, and through education.
St Joe voted twice to tax themselves for the sake of new shopping centers. Where does education fit in?

April 1, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

arch286 says...

Is this an anti-tax group from Kansas City? Why does this group care about local school district issue here in St. Joseph? I think this mystery group and their real purpose would be a great News-Press research article. Or did some group or individual from St. Joseph rub some political feathers in Jefferson City? One question no one seems to address is how are the citizens of St. Joseph going to be able to pay more property tax when most have little disposable income left over at the end of the month. I am saving up to pay my property tax on my auto.

April 1, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

micfnnng says...

why is it everyone so concerned about donors to the citizens against the forever tax and yet no seems to mind that the citizens for children wont disclose all of thier donors. mainly those contributing $100 or more of in-kind donations such as office space, phones, office equiment and suppies. isnt it illegal not to list these contributors.go to 411.com and do a reverse phone number serch on the campaiogns main number (816)671-4000. what are they trying to hide and are these cotributions legal

April 1, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

howarddecker says...

sanity

What is disgusting is you labeling Sam Graves. This article clearly states it's his BROTHER's law firm. And labeling Mr. Graves for something Axiom is doing is just plain WRONG. Shame on you and shame on the article author.
Nice ploy for distracting voters from the facts that our School District has NOT been good stewards of tax dollars in the past.

Nobody has convinced me to give our School District a blank check and to raise our taxes twice.

I've got until April 7 to make up my mind, and I'll not be bullied.

April 1, 2009 at 8:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

classyt says...

This is all disturbing and disappointing as to how our levy/bond issue has become so political. I think the opposition campaign that bothers me the most is calling our educators politicians. The outsiders/Reeder pretty much sums it up in their commercial when they call our district people politicians. POLITICS REALLY:what is the agenda here; I have never believed my education or my children's education was political. Do we really care so little about our community, our children, and quality education that we resort to political trickery? Even you who oppose the levy/bond issue have to be disgusted at the lengths that some have gone to stop this issue from passing.
The bids that are coming into the district for resurfacing and roof repair are coming in $1,000s of dollars below what projected costs were thought to be. This is proof that construction companies are willing to take low bids to keep their company in business. Bottom line: prices keep rising we NEED to keep our tax for everyday operations to continue so our educational system does not fail.
Second point: Our economy proves right now is the perfect time to build cheaper, keep our local people working, and start building a better St. Joseph for the future. Vote yes/yes if you truly believe in a better tomorrow.

April 1, 2009 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

AVM1234 says...

howarddecker -- the district is NOT asking to raise your taxes twice. The levy is something you already pay. The bond is a minimal increase that can bring a tremendous change for the better in St. Joseph. If you own a home worth $100,000 (as do 75% of the people in St. Joseph) you will be asked to give $3.50 more a month. The average homeowner in St. Joseph will only pay $2.48 more a month. If you've tried to eat out at a fast food restaurant lately, or been to the grocery store, it's pretty obvious that most of St. Joseph is wasting at least that much in a month. If you are truly undecided, I would suggest you learn all the facts and not be bullied by Axiom Strategies and whoever their mysterious donor may be.

April 1, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

238er says...

micfnnng, did you read the article? It listed some of the donors. If you would take the time to go to the Missouri Ethics Commission website you can personally read the report and see each and ever donation needed to be reported whether in-kind or cash. There are indeed in-kind contributions. You can also see where they have spent their money.

April 1, 2009 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

graphicphotobug says...

how low does the news press have to go to bash the graves' family? really? thought you guys were saying this is about our kids, now your saying it's about sam graves . . . and went a long way to say it!!! his brother shares a building!! get over it!
so, what are you going to do when it fails? cry and blame it on sam graves? or if (heaven forbid)it passes, then what are you going to do to mr. graves? he has a lot of better things to worry about other than the small town mindedness of st. joseph. and does a good job at it!
why don't you worry about what the current president is doing, you won't have to worry about a silly school board tax, when we turn to a socialist country!

April 1, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

classyt says...

Food for thought:We talk about nostalgia when talking of the old buildings (Hall/Neely) let's look at this area another way. We all know when you build a new house the value of the neighborhood goes up. What a boost to the value of homes to have a brand new state of the art school built on the neighborhood hill. Can you imagine the boost the home owners and potential home owners will get from this school being constructed? Have you stood on top of Carden Park:Wow what a view? When people take pride in something, they get excited can you imagine how kids, that get very little new in life, will feel when they walk through doors of a new school.

Most children try to perform to please adult expectations:shouldn't we show these same children that we want to invest into them, that we care about them, and we want them to be proud of the decisions we make for their future. Sadly some children, from all walks of life, see school as their only safe place, as a place of consistency a place they can depend on to be normal. Wouldn't it be wonderful to show them how much we understand their needs and wants? People will say they don't need a new school to learn. Granted children can learn just as well in the old schools, but that is not the point. The point is when they start learning in the new schools with new technology they will continue forward, they won't turn around and say, "We like the old less productive school." These future community leaders will continue to grow and they will look for a better St. Joseph because we cared enough to pay for a better tomorrow:wow what a legacy!

April 1, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

micfnnng says...

238er I did go to the mec web site and read both reports no where do I see the sjsd listed or cost listed for rent of an office. however both the campaigns address and phone number are listed to 2 diffrent stsd addresses. how much does office space complete with phones and office equipmentrent for in the downtown area or on frederick ave. I would bet more than $100 a month.

April 1, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mizzoufanatic says...

I am so disappointed to hear that the Graves' family is connected to this. I am a Sam Graves supporter and if he cares about his future in politics, he best make a valid statement soon regarding this fiasco. I know that if Sam is in support of the Citizens against the Forever Tax, he will most likely lose a lot of the people who backed him in this last election, including myself.

I am not a parent, but I know how important it is to pass these issues for the growth of St. Joseph. For those of you worried about the economy and the loss of jobs, it will only get worse if we do not help this levy pass. When new residents look to relocate they look at infrastructure. This also applies to new businesses looking to expand. Having better facilities is one of the most important pieces in rebuilding St. Joe and creating jobs for our unemployed.

This is not a new tax!
This is not a new tax!

Please do not let these outsiders keep us from letting our city flourish. They are fighting to be the only ones who draw new residents & businesses because they already have better school structures.

It's unfortunate that one of the voices behind this group is someone I admired from afar and saw as a kind person. Mr. Reeder, what has made you so bitter?

All Citizens of St. Joe, if you care about the future of this city, please ignore the naysayers and vote YES TWICE on April 7th!

April 1, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

micfnnng says...

apple thanks for making my point. in-kind donations over $100 are required to be listed as well as thier source. webster defines in-kind : consisting of something ( as goods) other than money
the missouri ethics commission defines in=kind as: In-Kind Contribution An in-kind contribution is a contribution in a form other than money. It is the responsibility of the campaign to report the value of an in-kind contribution. The in-kind value should be the fair market value. (What someone else would pay for the same thing.)

April 1, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lamplighter says...

Check out American Democracy Alliance on the web..all trails lead back to Jeff Roe and various committees of Citizens Against one thing or another..the KC Star web sites are loaded with editorials about this group, their negative way of doing business, failure to disclose names of their contributors, negative last minute robo calls and more..then ask yourselves, Why is this group so interested in working for Ken Reeder? Why would Jeff Roe be so interested in taking this cause on for the relatively small sum of $10,000? That's not alot of money compared to some of his political campaigns..Why does the name of someone from the Graves family keep popping up? Why am I suddenly hearing the name Rob Schaaf mentioned in connection with this group? What is the end game? What lies down the road?

April 1, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

micfnnng says...

apple first i take it from your response that you feel not reporting in-kind donations violates election laws. second mr reeder is not my leader. the only thing i have found useful is that everytime he appears in the media he opens the blogs so the rest of us can voice our opinions. all I have ever said that may seem like support for mr reeder is that all sides should play by the same rules. when everyone attacked mr reeder for lying i pointed out where the citizens for children lied as well, when mr reeder was attacked for using "out of towners", I pointed out where citizens for children used " out of towners" as well.

April 1, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

micfnnng says...

keep trying. volunteers have admited on this blog that they made phone calls from district schools using district phones. as for out sources what about patron insight. paid for by the campaign therefore it was an out of town source used by the cfc.
as for the group supporting mr reeder from what I have seen and granted I have not spent a lot of time researching them, they appear tobe a conservitive group that opposes what they see as bad taxes, through out the state,
so based on your argument then mr reeder is dead wrong and we should not vote the way he says.

April 1, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

micfnnng says...

oh I forgot the campaign in a news press article admitted to using office machines and supplies at the schools to print up campaign literature

April 1, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

238er says...

micfnnng, what is campaign literature? If the district produces information to hand out to the public is that campaign literature? I think not. Providing data on the ballot measure is not campaign literature. For example, the yellow yard signs are and are paid for by the committee and is disclosed on the reports.

The lawyer in question is an employee of Todd Graves' law firm.

April 1, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sjsdv1 says...

I would just like to take the time to tell everyone that I have 2 kids that went to school at Hall School.
I would like to have it known that the truth is not getting out.
If you take the time to go look at Hall School you will find that there are 9 bathrooms in the school + the 2 main bathrooms.
There is a New Computer Lab
New Library &
New Science Lab on the lower floor.
I'm just getting tired of them making Hall look So BAD when it is just not so.....
Lets all tell the truth not what we want you to know.

April 1, 2009 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

falcon says...

The News-Press identified Jewell Patek as a former employee of Congressman Graves. They might also want to see who Mr. Caisley works for.

April 1, 2009 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

classyt says...

Okay sjsdv1 let's look at Hall...Where are all these bathrooms? Are they bathrooms that all students can use or just single student/staff usage and even at that how do you count 9? What about the water problem on the north side of the school? The playground pitches towards the school and therefore all the water runs to the school resulting in water migration problems through the foundation. The district could spend up to a million dollars to fix the water problem to the building and to fix the excavation problem could easily be a half million or more. Dumping this much money into a 100 year old school...how does this make economical sense? Now moving on to small problems no ADA accessibility, except for the library, this is where a child would be stuck even on crutches. There are roof concerns, and we won't even go into the electrical issues. This building is due to be point tucked and water proofed, which is at least $50,000 and that is a conservative estimate. A building can look good, but the infrastructure and other concerns are usually concealed by cosmetic coverings. For just 22 cents on the 100 you would rather have your child go to this school than get the benefits from a new 21st. century school?

April 1, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rklare says...

It is time for the school board to be better stewards of tax payer's money or get out of the business. The Assessed value of the school district has increased 30% since 2004...$69 billion to $90 billion. During this time they also got a 67 cent temporary increase in tax. Ms. Smith, along with the school board, should resign if they can't run the ditrict on this money. Time has come for a voucher system.

The present private schools in SJ are run at 1/2 the cost per pupil as our public school district...and there is ample proof the private schools do a much better job of educating students.

April 1, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

insideout says...

Congratulations St. Joseph you have just let Mr. Reeder, Mr. Roe, and any other group/individual associated with them accomplish their mission. They have successfully drawn you away for the real matters at hand. Rather than focusing on the issues and continuing your efforts to provide factual, informative details about the levy/bond you are now focused on uncovering the source of funding for both sides when it really does not matter at it this point. In fact, by placing so much emphasis on this matter for the opposition you are providing them additional free coverage to spread their negative, non-progressive message.

Yes, this group of folks does need to be uncovered but this is not the time. You are being sucked into their perfectly set trap. I encourage you to stay the course and continue to provide information that is relevant to the specific matter of the levy/bond which the campaign funding is not:you will (can) not change that at this stage.

As a side note, anyone seen apmastrangelo posting on any of the blogs where Mr. Reeder and Mr. Roe are the specific focus? Is it just a coincidence?

April 1, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Orliandor says...

I noticed the absence of apm as well. I hope she's not sick or anything.

April 1, 2009 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

classyt says...

Orliandor-apm is male and if I'm not mistaken insideout was trying to point out that people who are involved with people usually try not to post so they don't inadvertently say something to lead people to know they are involved with those people.

April 1, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

heritage_sarahhochschwender says...

classyt t///// i think that is a bit of a stretch. the thrill is gone..........

April 1, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

classyt says...

heritage - perhaps you should ask insideout if that is not what he meant???

April 1, 2009 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Trixie says...

Ugh, I just got an automated phone message from Reeder & Co. I hate automated phone messages.

Vote yes/yes!

April 1, 2009 at 7:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gingeebread says...

I just got one of those automated messages too. Ridiculous. Just what I want to have interrupt our family eating dinner - a robo-call literally yelling false information at me.

St. Joe -- keep your eyes on the vision at hand. These folks are just trying to distract us, but instead let's pull together to show them who is really in charge of making decisions for our community -- we are!

Vote yes, twice!

April 1, 2009 at 7:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gates507 says...

rklare-what ample proof do you have that private schools provide a better education? What private schools in St. Joseph have a F/R lunch rate comparable to most of the elementary, middle and high schools in our city? How many mentally retarded students are they providing services for? How many emotionally disturbed children do they service? The list can go on forever. I am sure that private schools are doing a great job teaching their students, but given a choice, my kids will attend public schools (luckily that is the case!).

Vote yes twice!

April 1, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GenXMom says...

Please remember that children are in the middle of this tug of war. If there are concerns about the way money is spent, there are ways to handle that like adults, ways that don't involve punishing children - and if you believe that the quality of the learning environment has nothing to do with the quality of education, then you ought to spend a day trying to focus on learning in one of our oldest buildings to gather some first-hand experience.

April 1, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

apmastrangelo says...

Hello everyone.
Thank the Lord, I am alive and well.
Father-in-law in ICU due to renal failure and needing dialysis. Family always first.
Now just to clear up a few things and some of the innuendos by those claiming to have a hate when seeing such things.
classyt - correct; male, as mentioned to some on other matters you may address me as apmastrangelo, Anthony, or Mr. Mastrangelo.
Insideout - If you are as concerned about city development as claimed and would be involved in a significant number of other civic matters being discussed you could not miss the fact that I have posted about countless subjects. There would also be no doubt over my independent position on these topics if read.
Just to make it perfectly clear though, no, I have not posted on any of the other sites you mentioned. But even if I had, so what. You see being individual of mind does not restrict me or anyone else on the forum they might wish to use in expressing them-self. And as you might also note, while my position on the subject at hand has not changed, there has been no reluctance in agreeing on specific points even when coming from those not sharing my views.
Happy to have coffee with any wishing to discuss this further provided you are not concerned over your identity being known.

April 1, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

238er says...

APM, sorry to hear about FIL in ICU. Not a fun place. Remember to enjoy humor where you find it. Also remember to get outside and enjoy the sunshine (even if it is a little cold).

April 1, 2009 at 8:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

apmastrangelo says...

238 - Thanks for your thoughts and a laugh is good medicine for all. Affraid there will be a shortage of the sunshine tomorrow but like we say just wait a day and it will change.

April 1, 2009 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

classyt says...

APM--no matter which side we are on I would never wish an illness on anyone. I pray your father-n-law is doing better.

April 1, 2009 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

roughrider says...

As I said earlier, the truth is coming out and it's not pretty...Sam Graves and Rep. Schaff, I hope you get what you've asked for......In your quest to bankrupt the public schools of this state and further your agenda of school vouchers you are going to fail this time. You have not only lost the votes of school employees and their families, you have lost the votes of dedicated St. Joseph citizens who care about their community and its children. It's sad that you are owned by people like the H------ who are also out to ruin the public schools. I am proud to say that I support the public schools of this city and our community. How sad it is that you still won't come out of the shadows and let the public know how you really feel. You're hiding behind a fake organization. Come out, come out and say it isn't so!

April 1, 2009 at 9:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MAMA3girls says...

On private schools- not only is the district required by law to provide speech/ learning disabilities etc services- the district must also pay part of the Title One funding to cover Free and Reduced students in the private schools. This $ comes right off the top of the Title One $ the district gets.

April 1, 2009 at 9:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

insideout says...

APM - First and foremost, I am sorry to hear about your family member and I hope everything turns out for the best.

I will be more than happy to sit down for coffee on April 24th, 25th, or 26th. It is after the school issue but I am quite positive we can find a thing or two to discuss about the current and future states of the community. My anonymity will no longer exist but maybe we can come together on a few topics. There is no need for me to share my identity in this forum. Feel free to contact me at vote4sjsd@hotmail.com.

April 1, 2009 at 11:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lamplighter says...

From my point of view, the opposition group to the bond & levy issue is composed of different agendas. Let me throw out a few of the possibilities. Mr Reeder is a publicity hound who was discharged from his sub position and is seeking his version of justice, the good voters of St Joseph that are genuinely concerned about the school district's lack of strategic plan and viewed wasteful spending want accountability and less taxes ( this is a legitimate position ) and the big money Jeff Roe people / politicians want to see legislation in Missouri to approve school vouchers, so they piggyback onto local efforts to defeat the ballot issue..Again, this is only one person's point of view..remember that however you choose to vote..the vote is about OUR community and future..

April 2, 2009 at 7:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

heritage_sarahhochschwender says...

ah, i see the attackers of Anthony have been leashed. you did a good job of turning tail, but not a single honest apology for besmirching this man's reputation. what a bunch of hypocrites you are.

this man has an impeccable sense of fairness, and classyt you need to step up and say you made an outrageously incorrect jump to a conclusion which was completely unwarranted.

as for the signs, no, i won't put one in my yard. i am afraid of retribution, and many who are voting NO are of like mind.

April 2, 2009 at 8:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

238er says...

heritage, compassion is not turning tail.

April 2, 2009 at 8:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

classyt says...

heritage -- I am not sorry for explaining what insideout was insinuating I didn't make the suggestion he did, but I notice you didn't take on insideout for his comment...why is that? However, I will apologize to insideout if I made a wrong assumption about his innuendo. Why are you so adamant about defending Mr. Mastrangelo he seems to do fine on his own? By the way you have thrown around a lot of insults and innuendos yourself not knowing the character of the people on this web site and I haven't seen you apologize for any of your remarks:don't go all holier-than-now just because he is your friend.

April 2, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_O says...

OK Gates507, you have given me some food for thought but I still would like to know, IF they need the levy for operating expenses, What happened to the Operating money, that was adequate to Operate on, PRE-2004 ? When the levy was requested it was stated that it was needed temporarily, therefore a sunset clause was added. To ME, that means that their intention was to go back to their Normal funding, which is the way it should be. NOW, they not only need to KEEP the funding of the levy but they want to make it PERMENANT. This is one question that has not been touched on and some people, (including myself) think that it is VERY important to know WHY the operating expences have DOUBLED in the past 5 years, and most of us don't think that it would have if they had not built the reserve so high. I DO understand the need for a reserve, but I DON'T understand the need for DOUBLE operating capital, and however you look at it, this is exactly what it amounts to.
That is the reason for my NO vote on the Levy and had they left the sunset clause in, that very well could have changed my vote to a yes. As for the bond issue, the jury is still out on that one, I don't buy into them closing ANY school because of it not having enough students, why not let Webster absorb some of the students from the Overcrowded schools ? You see it seems like thay want to build new schools to aleviate some of the overcrowding of other schools when we have schools that can already do that, that have a (to small population) to keep open. This is a MAJOR factor with people who intend to vote NO because there seems to be a solution to the problem already available, and that causes suspicion that there is a totally different motive for wanting the 2 new schools than to eliminate Overcrowding. It seems like all of the answers that have been previously given for this BOND issue don't give rational details as to why this would not work, they ALL seem to be sort of generic, and really explain nothing, which basically leaves the question unanswered. To be Quite Honest with you, I'll be THRILLED when it is all over, but for me, my vote will still be NO and ?, and it would have been YES and ?, if the sunset clause had remained. I feel like these 2 issues don't nave a very good chance of passing with this ecconomy and should have never been put on the same ballot. Sometimes when people become overwhelmed with mountains of information in a short period of time, it will result in negative outcome.
And by the way, there are at least 100 people at my church 12-14 hrs a day, and 7 days a week, stop by and see.

Steve-O

April 2, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

classyt says...

Steve_O I'm trying to understand why you want the sunset clause. It is too late to change the ballot, so let's just say the levy doesn't pass. The district will lose the 63 cents, which roughly estimates out to be 7 million a year (I could be wrong on that figure.) The state will then take away money because our tax payers put in less. If they put the levy on the ballot next year it will cost another $50,000. Look how much money the district will lose in operating money for just one year. Voting no will cost our district substantial funding and will set them back numerous years in making up this deficit. . I know you want accountability, but a no vote is counter productive not to mention the amount of people that will lose their jobs. The maintenance upkeep will be halted except for absolute necessities, which will only put our buildings in worse shape. A no vote could cause an increase in the levy tax next time it goes back to the ballot. The expenditures will be more from lack of proper upkeep and a cost of living increase. If we put a sunset clause on the levy in five years they could ask for more because we all know living expenses increase everyday. This way they are locked into this amount. If I remember right the last time Colgan put the sunset clause on was to allow people to see how the district would use the money. He hoped it would convince our community the need for the funding in the future. He didn't know our country would be in such a recession and financial mess. Please vote yes and then hold them accountable.

April 2, 2009 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GenXMom says...

I am in disbelief. How sad to think that I live in a community where $3.00 and some change a month (assuming you live in a $100,000 house) is so angst-inducing, especially when that money can make a huge difference in the quality of our community's education. Classyt is absolutely right - the cost of living increases constantly for everyone - families, businesses, and yes, school districts alike. To add insult to injury - I have fellow citizens who want to pay LESS than they are currently paying, to remove funding from the very system that produces the next generation of community's leaders? What if your boss decided to sunset your salary but expected you to continue performing at the same level, even better? Of course, that's not the best analogy - salary is designed to motivate and our school district employees are NOT in it for the money - it's not enough to draw anyone to the profession.

April 2, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_O says...

Classyt, I DO appreciate your civil explination but the question is not only still not answered but you have created a NEW question. Again, What happened to the ample operating funds PRE-2004, this levy was suppose to be for a specific purpose? and a NEW question, How could the State take away funding, just because a Temporary Tax expired, that does not seem possible but that is how I am reading your answer. When we passed the levy in 2004 did the State INCREASE the funding that our district got? Somehow I doubt that and if they Did Not increase our funding, then HOW coulld they take any away?
In addition, if the district will only lose $7 mil from the levy not passing then I can tell from the $ figures that it is not really needed, otherwise it would have been used instead of SAVED, and the cost of putting it back on the ballot should have been considered BEFORE putting both of these items on THIS ballot in these ecconomic times. It was probably the worst case of timing possible. These things are what many of us are looking at, and you are running out of time to get us to understand all of these unexplained things.

April 2, 2009 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wildwest says...

APM, my prayers for your father in law to get well.

Quickly, I will share some opinion about Reeder's movement. Just my opinion, but St. Joseph itself has opened itself up repeatly to outside influences with other agendas because of the continual indecisions and in house fighting on many core infrastructure related issues that have hindered progress in the past. Also the fact that on a major issue like this, only a week left before the vote, and we have heard nothing from our own political leaders, absolutely nothing. That in my view shows to the outside weakness in the communities efforts to move forward on many fronts, not just education and that breeds opportunities for outside interests to come in and attempt to influence and keep St Joseph out of the competitive market to grow. As we move forward, we need to unite together on all fronts, not just this and solidify a cohesive stand to progress foward, merge all areas of the city together to improve, (not alienate which is we have now, people avoid different parts of the city all together and no effort is made to improve as a whole, only bits and pieces), and our city government needs to get along. There are other political agendas at work, and if this passes, that means for another issue that will come for vote as time moves on, and there will be, there are at least 6 or 7 other pending issues out there on the county and state levels that will be harder to move and pass. So there are hidden agendas at work out there.

April 2, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

classyt says...

I have a quote that says it all "If you think education is expensive,
Try ignorance!" think about that next week when you go to vote and vote yes double time so that our society never falls prey to the quiet bigotry of lowered expectations by mediocre minds.

April 2, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

classyt says...

Steve_O -- I am not a big numbers person and since I am not against the tax I haven't looked into the particulars as much as some. However, the way it was explained to me in 2004 the state figures how much money will be allotted on how much the tax base is in your county. The higher the tax base the more funds your district is allocated. This is why places like Blue Springs has/will receive more state and federal monies than St. Joseph. It is also why places like Savannah get less. Quite frankly their way of figuring it seems unjust to me, but it is what it is. The state will figure our funding on our collectable taxes and when they see our tax base has receded I assume our funding will be less. If you want to know for sure call the state. Other people on the blog would know better than I, maybe someone else will be willing to share their expertise.

April 2, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lamplighter says...

Wildwest, I agree with you about not hearing anything from our political leaders. Why haven't our state and local elected officials either endorsed or come out against the bond & levy..I would like to hear from those elected leaders that can vote in this election.. How do they view this issue.. can they offer any helpful insight to the voter..they are elected to serve our district..are they afraid of voter backlash? You're right, by remaining quiet they demonstrate weakness and ultimately do disservice to our community..

April 2, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

apmastrangelo says...

My sincere thank you, to all for your kind thoughts.

ww - Right on center target again concern civic leadership, hidden agendas, and of course how politics of the day is playing out.

Of interest and no particular value, but those I have talked with since Tuesday on both sides of the fence, claim they have made their decision concerning both issues and do not see anything changing their vote. Good thing is Tuesday will be hear soon and we can all move on.

April 2, 2009 at 8:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

KateSacramento says...

We also can't forget that private schools pay teachers at least half of what public school teachers make, that's not enough to pay school loans or to raise a family. Who would be willing to get into teaching if they knew it could not support their family? Private schools work hard but public schools serve EVERY child, we must remember this. Some private schools require parents to volunteer, clean the building, help with duties. Public schools cannot and do not require this.

Most of all, only citizen of St. Joseph should be deciding on this issue. Let's not let outsiders with tons of money do it for us.

Vote yes twice.

April 2, 2009 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MAMA3girls says...

Steve-o- I am by no means an expert, but feel like I have some answers that may help answer your questions.

There were not ample funds pre-2004 and therefore the 63 cent temporary levy was asked for. As Dr. Dan Colgan stated in his letter this was done with much conversation about the hopes the levy could be reduced or eliminated if the economy improved and the SJSD could win a lawsuit against the state over the school foundation formula (the formula used to decide how much $ each district recieves from the state). Many districts were also involved in this lawsuit and unfornuately lost. This meant less $ for our district.

According to DESE, a nice gentlemen named Roger is knowledgable and helpful, every year a district works off a state formula to configure their budget and compare current year and then balance it out.

This is why in 2006, the district voluntarily rolled back the levy 5 cents. Yes- it was voluntary.

When the levy was passed we did recieve more state $$. The state matches local $$ dollar for dollar. What a deal...

April 2, 2009 at 8:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gingeebread says...

Steve-O --I can't claim to be great with numbers, either, but just or unjust as it may be, the state does have a matching amount to districts. The higher your operating levy, the more money you get from the state. If our levy falls back to its previous amount, the reserve will truly only last as long as the district claims, because the state will not send as much funding as the district is currently receiving. This is why it is CRUCIAL that the levy stays at the current level. Operating costs continue to increase, and so even if we vote the levy to stay at the current rate the district will have to start spending down the reserve carefully each year since they aren't asking for an increase in the levy right now.
Hope this helps, and I hope that you reconsider your no vote on the levy.

Vote yes, twice!

April 2, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MAMA3girls says...

What is changing... many things
The new school foundation formula is being phased in-we are currently at about 44%. In 3 years, the new formula will be fully in place. The state will no longer match dollar for dollar local funds. This means a LOSS of $ to our schools.

Insurance rates- the district is hoping on only a 9.5% increase in insurance premiums. Which is about 800K dollars cost to the district. However, another district has seen an increase of 35%. (This will be yet another unexpected expense. Thank goodness for the reserve.) Let's hope SJSD is luckier and cost increases for insurance stay down.

Retirement- The district is required to match retirement funds. These are being raised .05% at a cost of 300K to the district.

So, due to the increases and what will be less state funding after the formula is fully phased in- the district needs to renew and make permanent the 63 cent operating levy.

April 2, 2009 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MAMA3girls says...

As far as the reserve goes, the district was able to build a very healthy reserve. The SJSD Board has recommended to spend down the reserve to between 16-18% of the opeating budget. This will prevent the board from asking for a levy increase. It will also aid in covering the unexpected expenses that are coming up and will continue to come up (higher lunch prices, retirement match, and insurance premiums). The amount left is felt to be safe for our district taking into consideration the number of students (approx. 11K) number of employees (approx 1,700) number of buildings/programs in operation.

DESE gives a recommendation to schools for their reserves. Reserves cannot go below 3% (This is a dangerously low amount and if the reserve goes under this funds must be transferred to the reserve from elsewhere.)
Reserve cannot go above 50% or funds must be transferred from the reserve.

With all of this information, I can confidently and educatedly say that I believe our district/board has been very prudent with my tax dollars, and they continue to look to the future with fiscal reeponsibility.

Thank you! Vote YES TWICE!

April 2, 2009 at 9:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rl479i says...

For all of the ones that are against this issue, you should just as well be Heartland management. You are only concerned about your pocket book and not the community. With all of these employers (like Heartland) cutting jobs in the Saint Joseph area you would think that if you thought of anyone else besides yourself; that there would be no question that we need new schools. Companines that are looking to expand and build in a new area are looking at your school systems to see how up to date they are. So when all of these companies in st. joe decide to close and people loose jobs and then they have to start traveling for 1hr-2hrs 1 way for work and then you start complaining. I think at that time you should look in the mirror and blame yourself and not anyone else. This whole issue has gotten out of hand i feel like it is the presidential election all over again. You nonsupporters need to quit acting like preschoolers and grow the hell up.

April 3, 2009 at 12:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

classyt says...

thank you Mamma3 for your info I hope it helps! Thanks apple I too thought lampliter's remarks were good. As for rl479i your remarks are what a lot of people feel, by the way Heartland isn't nicknamed "Heartless" for no reason. Just a side note that isn't really tax related, more one of history...today April 3 1860 the pony express left the stables for the first time. Also, in 1882 Jesse James was shot. We do live in a historic town; wouldn't it be nice to move ahead and continue making historic events...such as voting for two school taxes so there will be a prosperous future!!!

April 3, 2009 at 8:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

10377586 says...

The state does not match local effort dollar for dollar. There is a correlation between local revenue and state aid however, the higher the levy the more state aid you can drive from it, but it is not dollar for dollar.

April 3, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

familyguy says...

There hasn't been enough anger and vitriol hurled at one another about this. Can we call each other names and curse at each other a little more? Sheesh, I can't wait for April 8 just so people can simmah don nah.

April 3, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

joserobidoux says...

I had to split my comments into two
I have done my best to keep an open mind as I have been reading comments posted over the past few weeks, but between the negative ads and the phone calls I've received over the past few days, I can no longer just watch as the intentions and reputations of career educators are tarnished with half-truths. As I've spent weeks digesting the issues and trying to come to an informed opinion, I've come to some conclusions, and ultimately, to a decision.
The ads and phone calls have now started calling our superintendent and administrators "politicians" to make them sound more sinister and deceitful. They challenge the integrity of Dr. Smith because she at dinner while on a trip, or traveled in the first place. I think it's only fair that the integrity of the people making these claims go under the same scrutiny.
Jeff Roe (the Axiom person) has a right ot make a living just like anyone else. Nobody should debate that. I just think that it is important that Mr. Reeder and others that are being supported by his group should realize that his record is pretty clear. He doesn't care about your issue. He cares about your money. I have no doubt that if the campaign supporting the issue were to outbid the money being spent for his services, Mr. Roe would do an 180 and support the other side. This is the same person that made Kay Barnes look like a swinger from San Francisco. I voted for Sam Graves, but was disappointed that to win they made Kay look like someone she wasn't. I've never met Mr. Roe, but he would appear to be a modern mercenary. Follow the money.

April 3, 2009 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )