Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Rob Schmidt/St. Joe Now
Jeff Roe, left, and Kenneth Reeder discuss the St. Joseph School District's bond and levy proposals during a meeting with the News-Press editorial board Tuesday at the newspaper building in Downtown St. Joseph.
Some members of a group calling themselves, "Citizens Against Forever Tax" met with the News-Press editorial board Tuesday morning to air concerns about the St. Joseph School District's upcoming bond/levy issue. The three-member group representatives also claimed that opposition to the school bond/levy didn't get equal coverage.
"We think it's very important that in two weeks from now, the voters are able to go to the polls with a very clear sense of what is on the ballot, why it's on the ballot and what arguments for it and against it are," said Jeff Roe, principal of Axiom Strategies, a Kansas City political consulting firm. "It seemed to me that this was beginning to spiral into things that didn't pertain to items that were on the ballot."
Kenneth Reeder hired Mr. Roe on a commission basis to run a campaign that he said is not against the bond and levy, but instead asks the district to make specific amendments to their requests.
On April 7, the school district will ask voters to renew the 63-cent operating levy and drop its sunset clause. Also on the ballot is a bond issue that, if passed, would provide for two new schools, an addition to Skaith Elementary and the purchase of property for a future school site.
Mr. Reeder said he would be in favor of the levy if the district kept the five-year sunset clause intact. He also said he would favor the district using some of its $32.8 million in reserves to build one new school, which would ease the burden on taxpayers.
"St. Joseph is very typically a sunset town. It's a way to hold accountability," Mr. Reeder said. "I'm not against the kids, I'm not against the school system ... I asked them to leave the sunset clause in there and I would help them support it and I think it would pass that way."
Bill Arthur, a Cameron, Mo., newspaperman with the group, said the school district has been shooting from the hip for the last five years. He said the district claimed it badly needed the levy in 2004, but bankrolled most of the money.
Mr. Arthur added that the school district's plans to freeze the purchase of textbooks, technology and salaries, even if the levy passes, make little sense. It's indicative of its lack of a strategic plan, he said.
"My question is, what is their plan?" he said. "You don't take things away from the kids, especially when you get it passed. That doesn't make any sense."
Mr. Arthur said the district also takes credit for voluntarily rolling back the levy increase a few years ago. It was actually a mandatory rollback, he said.
"You had a 17.8 percent increase in your assessment, and the state auditor rolled that back, whether you wanted to or not," he said.
Mr. Roe argued that those opposing the bond and levy don't get equal coverage in the newspaper. He pointed out the "Raise Your Hand" feature that runs in the News-Press every Thursday, where the district gets to answer questions on the issues, as an example.
He also said it was unfair to call Mr. Reeder a lone protester, when in fact many more oppose the bond and levy. But those people and businesses supporting the opposition are afraid of repercussions.
"You don't think if a businessman puts his name on the list, he is not punished by the chattering classes in St. Joe?" Mr. Roe said. "It's toxic for people to be involved with this. Do you really think we don't have any people supporting this effort?"
He added that Citizens Against Forever Tax has filed formal complaints against the district for misuse of public funds for its campaign and other alleged ethics infractions. Those complaints are under investigation, he said.
"This isn't because we don't like children; this is a rational disagreement that's framed in an irrational, over-emotionally heated argument," Mr. Roe said. "One thing that gets me needled and fired up and ginned up with this campaign is because they are trying to silence people, just because they are against them."
Alonzo Weston can be reached at alonzow@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
9112steve says...
Just about a week ago Ken Reeder stated that he did not hire Mr Jeff Roe and then he went on to say he could not afford to pay that kind of money. I guess Ken you are ready to tell people where you get your money. Ken you ask the district to be held to different standards then you feel you have to follow is that fair?
Mr.Roe and Mr Arther are not from our community so do they have a right to intervene in our local school issues? When Ken shows up and makes a protest at the schools he usually does not have any one show up to support his song and dance but he get coverage. It looks like Ken is able to get one heck of a lot of coverage for a one man show with two outsiders being dancing monkeys. Mr. Roe gets paid for his opinion and will say anything for a meal. I think Ken should come clean about why he is so hateful when it comes to the school district? Did Ken once work for the school district? If so what happen when he worked there? Did he quit or was he fired and if so why? I think people have the right to know? Why does the media not cover this issue?
If the News Press feels it is necessary to give equal time to a one man show and two people without roots in our community maybe they need to sell their papers in Cameron and Kansas City where these outsiders live. I would like the News Press to hold Ken to the same level of investigation as they do the School District starting now. Your own newspaper took a stand that the bond issue should be supported but some of your actions speak a different view.
I am Steve Holdenried and I believe in supporting our children. Mr Roe in my opinion will do anything and everything to silence people. He is an example of a hired gun from the old west. I live here Mr Roe and I want the best for our children. Ken I was at a political fundraiser last week and one of our local politicians called your views so wrong and stated in public that you are just a complete idiot. I think you have just gone too far this time Ken.
I plan on supporting my community and its children. I will vote yes twice.
March 25, 2009 at 2:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
At least the school district get's a section in Thursday's paper in order to address the opposition's questions. What about the other six days of the week when nearly every article is slanted against the district? All of this coming from an individual that NP states: "When asked, Jeff Roe of Axiom Strategies, a political consulting firm in Kansas City, denied any involvement." Let's be honest, Mr. Roe is no more innocent of the same exact thing he is accusing the district of:taking some else's money.
Exactly who is Mr. Roe referring to when he states, "the chattering classes", is that the hardworking citizen who wants their child to have more than they had? Is that not a piece of the American dream? I encourage these "businessmen" as well as the city's "leaders" to come forward and express their concerns. Of all people, these are the folks that are suppose to guide our community, look for improvements, encourage advancement, and lead the community into the future. Instead, they prefer to cower hide behind a scapegoat and continue their sly under the radar ways of influencing the community. If that method of leadership has been so effective then why does the downtown area continue to suffer, why has a new school not been built in the last 38 years, why do tomorrow's future leaders flee St. Joe, and where are the jobs for the next generation?
March 25, 2009 at 2:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildwest says...
I am curious why is there so much emphasis on this issue in the wee hours of the morning and on this forum in general? If the initiative is ironclad and there is high confidence that there will be enough votes to pass this, then there should be no worries.
March 25, 2009 at 3:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildwest says...
By the way, insideout, interesting perspective.
March 25, 2009 at 3:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Harley_Blackwell says...
Great idea! We should have put a sunset clause in the Declaration of Independence too. That way, just in case our leadership fails, we can always go back to the status quo of England. In fact, if it is such a good idea, why don't we have a sunset clause for every single tax or law!
Give me a break. A sunset clause would waste money on elections every five years and be terrible for long-term planning.
March 25, 2009 at 6:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KateSacramento says...
This article doesn't make any sense to me. First of all (and the NP should know this) you can't use the reserves to build new schools. This has been stated over and over again!
Second, Ken Reeder is always quoted in the paper or on TV. I've never heard a single volunteer from the Citizen for Children group.
Third, if you are afraid to openly oppose the bond and levy that tells me you are probably ashamed, as well you should be. This is for the future of our community.
Fourth, why are we letting outsiders come in and tell our community how it should run? Bill Authur is from Cameron and Jeff Roe is from Kansas City. They don't care if St. Joseph suffers, they just collect their money and run!
It is also the responsibility of the media to provide a forum for answers and it is the responsibilty of the district to answer them. There for, the raise your hand section offers vital information to tax payers.
I'm begging the NP to get their priorities straight! I read a blog about going green and not purchasing the newspaper. That's beginning to sound pretty good to me.
March 25, 2009 at 6:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KateSacramento says...
Wildwest - nothing is ironclad and printing half truths and lies (like building with the reserves) only perpetuates the problem of misinformation.
March 25, 2009 at 6:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trixie says...
In my humble opinion, CAFT gets more attention than it deserves now. It has no reason to complain.
Sign me Yes-Yes
March 25, 2009 at 6:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gates507 says...
Jeff Roe, political hired gun from Kansas City was hired by Ken Reeder? How much does it cost to hire a political consultant? Where was he when Mr. Reeder did his press release with an old chalkboard? I find it hard to believe that Ken Reeder, whose opposition group changed its name 2 weeks after forming, that the paper said a few weeks ago has raised $1,100 has raised the significant amount needed to hire an outside political consultant from Kansas City. Who is really paying for this? Why do we need someone from Kansas City telling us how to vote? Jeff Roe-vote how ever you like in your own district and leave St. Joe decisions to those living in St. Joseph. We are smart enough to make our own decisions.
Why is the paper interviewing a Cameron citizen? Is Cameron paying for the bond or levy if passed?
Let's interview people who live and work in St. Joseph, those who are affected by this issue, not outsiders who will pay for the levy and bond if passed or have to live with old buildings and a cut in education if it doesn't.
Vote yes twice citizens of St. Joseph!
March 25, 2009 at 6:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I openly oppose both the levy and the bond issue...and I'm not ashamed to do so. I am against a "forever" tax. If the levy was merely asking for it's extention, with another review in 5 years...I'd probably support it. As for the bond issue, I still oppose building new schools to replace the ones that only a few short years ago were added to, and declared "updated and upgraded and ready for the 21st century".
I'm voting "NO"...twice. Any district that would freeze the salaries of the lowest paid teachers in the state, and would, instead, advocated building new buildings, is irresponsible, short-sighted and just plain wrong.
March 25, 2009 at 6:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gates507 says...
Has Reeder filed with the state? According to a paper out of Kansas City, Mayor Funkhouser (KC) hired Jeff Roe to help with his image at $5,000 per month. How much is Reeder paying for this KC consultant?
Debate=good
Outsiders=Vote on levies and bonds in your own district
Vote yes twice!
March 25, 2009 at 6:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
howarddecker says...
Wow 9112steve,
Why are you so opposed to anyone presenting opposition to these bonds?
I think it odd from your early morning posts (and I'm talking 2 in the morning, while everyone else is sleeping) you are trying to squelch any opposing views by get your post listed first.
Did you know by clicking on ones name on a post in this forum, every post that person made can be listed? Clicking on your name one can see you've made 75 article comments since February 10th. Of those 75 comments, 70 of them were you stumping for the school district.
You're not the only one doing this. Readers are getting wise to this Guerrilla Campaigning by the proponents of these School District proposals.
March 25, 2009 at 6:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
minimee46 says...
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS PROVED NOTHING BUT LACK OF RSPONSIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO MONEY, NEW SCHOOLS ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE OUR CHILDREN SMARTER. WITH A RECESSION GOING ON HOW CAN ANYONE ASK FOR SOMETHING WE DONT HAVE. DUMB DUMB DUMB MELODY SMITH IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE A NAME FOR HERSLF AT OUR COST. I STILL VOTE NO AND NO
March 25, 2009 at 6:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AVM1234 says...
Mr. Roe was hired by Mr. Reeder "on commission"?! What on earth does that mean? If he helps defeat the levy he gets one price and if he helps defeat both the levy and bond he gets a bonus? This is crazy. It's just a way for Mr. Roe to be associated with a local person so that he isn't considered an "outsider." We can see right through you two! Since when does a high powered republican pundit partner with a democrat unless he is motivated by the all mighty dollar -- which is definitely coming from more than just Mr. Reeder. Remember, Mr. Roe was the genius behind the "San Francisco Values" campaign for Sam Graves. If Mr. Roe is involved, get ready for a nasty campaign filled with lies and deceit. Business are overwhelmingly for these measures! Ask Ted Allison or Boehringer Ingleheim how important this is to attracting new business to St. Joseph. The unions just endorsed this because they know the positive economic impact this will have on St. Joseph. If Mr. Roe and Mr. Reeder aren't "against kids" then why are they agains economic development?
One more thought -- does inflation have a sunset clause? Can anyone find a school district anywhere that has a sunset clause on their operating budget?
March 25, 2009 at 7:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mamamia says...
let's go green with the newspaper! i love that idea and i live it, too! this is another example of why i choose not to purchase a paper. you're telling me that the news press editorial board gave these people time? 2 people who don't even live in this community? one of those people who only says what his paycheck tells him to say? i'm with insideout, where are the other business people who oppose this? mr. reeder and mr. mason are the only ones the np seem to quote. now you're telling me some guy out of cameron gets a platform to state his views? who is he anyway?
tell me this, np, how many other school districts have a sunset clause in their levy? have you even researched that? i would gather NONE because other communities believe in their school system. has anyone figured out that if the district had not built a reserve fund they would be asking for an increase in the levy instead of a continuation? has anyone figured out that the district is spending down their reserve fund over the next few years? face it, the district has managed the money we gave them very frugally, and because of that frugality they can only ask for the levy to continue instead of an increase. sunset clauses only waste taxpayer money.
why hasn't the np done anything to report on mr. reeder's campaign finances? if he has hired jeff roe then he must have filed something with the ethics commission on how he is spending his money. perhaps you could make that call?
My final comment is this: mr. roe stated in an earlier interview with the np that he wasn't involved in the opposition against these 2 issues. now he is. mr. reeder has changed his story numerous times. the people of st. joe should look at the integrity of these 2 people very closely.
March 25, 2009 at 7:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sidamo says...
Had the district and city leadership started planning 15 years ago, informed the public, and acted on a plan by monitoring transfers, redistricting, and saving money (as they have the last 5 years), we would be building a new school naturally. We would have tremendous confidence in the Saint Joseph Leadership.
Dr. Smith has come in behind years of neglect and, granted, has now come up with a plan. I don't disagree with the theories behind the plans, but the method and timing of its implementation.
If the District could take a more even keeled approach, say, not including the Sunset Clause, there would be more support. One cannot say that every 5 years they would be asking for a renewal because no one knows the future. Perhaps in 5 years they would only need a $.25 levy - again, reasonable, and demonstrating good stewardship.
March 25, 2009 at 7:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lamplighter says...
I am a voter still on the fence about the bond & levy, and I have some questions for proponents on both sides of the issue. I hear alot about why the district administration needs the issues to pass, but in these trying economic times, what is the administration willing to give up to make the issues viable to the voter. Are they willing ( for example ) to forgo catering meals at/before meetings, cut back their travel expenses, eliminate Dr Colgan's consultant fees and perks and ask newly hired teachers to teach summer school on a rotating basis as a part of their contract with no increased cost to the district?
What exactly is Mr Reeder's agenda in this whole issue..was he fired fronm the district and is now acting out of revenge? What is Mr Roe's agenda other than money? Is there a St Louis connection to Mr Roe, bankrolling his involvement? If the answer is yes, who and why ? Is Mr Arthur a property owner in the district, if not, why is he involved?
More importantly..WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH..I think the district needs to give something to get something and their opposition needs to come clean with their agenda..
News Press do your job, dig deeper in your investigation,look at both sides, ask some tough questions and give the reader some straight answers..I think the community deserves that before we vote..
March 25, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Riley says...
I find it interesting that Mr. Reeder states "I asked them to leave the sunset clause in there and I would help them support it and I think it would pass that way."
So does Mr. Reeder feel he has so much influence on the voters of St. Joseph that his individual endorsement will pass any issue put forth to the citizens.
Now that's an ego.
March 25, 2009 at 8:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wr49tm says...
lamplighter - sadly it is unlikely you will get the direct answers you are looking for from either side of the issues. both are passionate about their stance and grossly exaggerate why you should or should not vote for these measures. both sides present valid points, and both include truths. it is unfortunate that the issues are being sold from both sides as a package deal. voters are expected to be either adamantly for or against both. good luck with your decision.
March 25, 2009 at 8:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
9112steve says...
to howarddecker
If you really read my blogs you would find that I support the right of people to voice their opinion. Mr Decker you make a accusation that is not true and you can not back it up. I do like the school district and I feel the need to support the building of 2 new schools and I also support the children who go to Neely and Hall Schools. Howard do you feel that because these students come from a poor area they do not deserve a school equipped with adequate facilities? Do you feel that they do not deserve adequate bathrooms, a full size gym with two backboards, better technology, and rooms for special services? Poor people with the least deserve better and I will stand up for my neighbors and fight for the best education for the children of this community poor or rich.
I will vote yes twice and make that one more blog, thanks Steve Holdenried.
March 25, 2009 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
why is it that when mr reeder brings in 2 people from outside st joseph to help him get his message across, mr reeder and the np are condemed but not one of those screaming foul say a word about the rucker boys appearing in tv ads supporting the 2 levies? i dont beleave either of these gentleman live in st joseph.
March 25, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
howarddecker says...
sidamo and lamplighter-
Well said.
It is interesting how strong proponents of this want to quash the opposition and silence the press. I wonder why.
mamamia & KateSacramento
I don't know what your "going green" talk is, but the News-Press is, one of the biggest supporters of this proposal. Would you cut off your foot to spite yourself? Dumb, very dumb.
Thank God for the first Amendment.
March 25, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sidamo says...
Great comments, lamplighter.
The reason you and many others of us are on the fence is that we do think it is reasonable to update and replace schools. In fact, truth be told, we'd love to be envied for marvelous school district facilities!
In yours, mine, and many others' thinking, however, that desire is restrained by economic stewardship, and frustrated by ambiguous, mysterious, even shady motives.
We err on the side of prudence and caution when the facts don't add up. In the long-term (forgive me for thinking this way), a few additional years of restraint and savings will payoff with accelerated confidence in the District followed by excellent planning and new, improved schools.
March 25, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
9112steve says...
Ken I have seen you ad today and you distort the truth. Why do you dance around the truth with you two pet monkeys? What did the School District do to you that make you dance around the truth? Come clean like you ask the school district to do?
I will vote yes twice.
Steve Holdenried
March 25, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Riley says...
micfnng. The Rucker boys both graduated from a high school in St. Joseph and went off to be successful in life. It's common practice for any community to promote "the hometown boy". Both donate time and money to the children of St. Joseph.
How much time and money do you think Mr. Roe and Mr. Arthur give to the children of St. Joseph?
March 25, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thisoleman says...
Wow, so out of the 3 members of this group, one of them is being paid to be in the group, one is from Cameron, and can't vote on this anyway, and the other was fired from the School District.....and how many articles has the NewsPress had on this guy, 3? 4? At least.
March 25, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scrubnurse says...
Jeff Roe???? Seriously.......That answers a question about a push poll phone call I received from California last week...When I asked WHO they were affiliated with....they hung up on me!
Anyone who has been involved in any kind of politics in this area knows 1) Jeff Roe is nothing but a "dirty" mudslinging SOB who puts out deceitful ads/literature against whomever (or in this case whatever) his client's opposition happens to be. 2) There is NO way Mr. Reeder could alone afford to hire him! I have heard a wealthy man from St. Louis is funding this campaign, and has funded several other campaigns across the state against other public school issues. This man from St. Louis has obviously found a couple of poster boys in Ken Reeder and this man from Cameron!
I also agree with Mr. Holdenreid's comment on Mr. Reeder being so against the School District....Why is he no longer being called to substitute teach? Could it be because of an alleged incident that happened at Central High School?
March 25, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Steve,
YOU said....and I quote..."If you really read my blogs you would find that I support the right of people to voice their opinion."
Why not keep the levy set so it must be reviewed by the voters in 5 years? Why not allow the people to "voice their opinion" on the levy at that time? Why remove the voter's voice and make the tax levy permanent, with no possibility of repealing it?
Also, Steve, would you mind telling me how the district could consider the very schools they want to replace "upgraded and updated, and ready for the 21st century" only a few short years ago, after having spent a tremendous amount of money on them? Now, they're not fit to teach our children in them? C'mon...you sound smarter than that. My children went to Hall school, and they got an excellent education there...not because of the building, but because of the tremendous staff and teachers there. I could support the levy if it were going to significantly raise the teacher's salaries, but that's not going to happen...even IF the levy passes. Please explain that....
March 25, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
sidamo you are right most of us that are opposing the current ballot issues are not against new school or our children. would the sjsb or anyone else be interested in how we could build new school withput increasing taxes? the money is already there it just needs to be adjusted. all the sjsd needs to do is reduce the $.63 levy to $.23 for general opperating funds and then move the remaining $.50 to a building fund. this would amount to about $5 milliom a year going to replacing the older schools. this can be done by 2 new ballot proposals that ould be on the augast ballot.
March 25, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scrubnurse says...
Well said apple!
March 25, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lamplighter says...
Scrubnurse..I ask you, is there any such thing as a free lunch?
March 25, 2009 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
voteyestwice says...
howarddecker you have 81 posts opposing the idea. Maybe Steve couldn't sleep, he does have a lot on his plate. Who's business is it of your what time he posts. And I find it funny that on March 7th you posted at 1 a.m. in the morning and the majority of your 81 posts are against the school district.
You have been working against the district and steve works for the district. Who cares if the majority of steve's posts are in support the district, that just shows you where his heart is. You get mad when somebody opposes your views but you do the same to others.
Stick to the issue at hand, the future of our children, not how many times someone posts about a passionate topic.
VOTE YES TWICE.........
March 25, 2009 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biggieroth says...
minimee46....I'm glad to see you can release the caps lock fury, it must be the only thing you can do since spelling and intelligent arguments escape you.
March 25, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
voteyestwice says...
Correction-not all 81 are about the school district. Just the majority.
March 25, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sidamo says...
Yes, micfnnng.
I don't think we yet realize how impactful a reasonable solution like this would be on the taxpayers of Saint Joseph. The District would earn our trust for years and we would be proud to be a part of such a straightforward plan.
March 25, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sidamo says...
Hello, voteyestwice.
Your all caps commands are counterproductive. We are not schoolchildren in need of correction.
Present your argument and thank you for letting us decide on it's merits.
March 25, 2009 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
sidamo using the boards own numbers, they were adding on average $5 million dollars to the reserve fund over the last 4 years. the board claims that in 2010 they will no longer need to add to the reserve fund thus freeing up $5,000,000. the board says they well begin spending down this surplus, but wont say on what. we have been told it wont be for building upgrdes or repairs those funds well come from freezing new text book and curriculum levels and reducing the amount spent on new technology. this means they be spending the $5 million on new books or computers for our kids either. why wont the board tell us where they well spending our money.
March 25, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justsayin says...
Wow, people really ARE staying up nights thinking about this crap!
I'm just wondering when Kenny Reeder got any credibility at all. Almost makes me want to vote yes twice.
March 25, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
apple i did not mean to imply that the build up of the reserve was a bad thing. the point is the sjsb admits that they will no longer need to to make such large contributions to that fund, thus freeing up that maney for other uses. why not use those funds for new building since the sjsb wont say where they are planning on spending it. as you so rightly point out our economy is in the tank because of excesses and abuse, refusing to say what the $5 million surplus will be used for leaves the door wide open for the same types of abuse and waste.
March 25, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
howarddecker says...
voteyestwice-
Not only are your WRONG, but you are a LIAR.
I've made 81 article comments since February 2008 that was over a year ago. Of those comments 13 of them had anything to do with the School Levy election. So don't spew your inaccuracies at me. Take time to check the facts.
To say I've been working against the district is another inaccuracy, or some might call it a lie.
I am all for accountability. I've always supported our schools and have paid untold taxes through the years in support. I've always supported our district and it's levies. You espouse that because someone questions they are against. You and your friends spread the poison that if someone asks questions they are bad people, against children and don't support our schools, and that's HOGWASH.
Untold hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars from levies in the past decade, that I've supported, and other taxpayers have supported, are now going to be thrown away. This money has been wasted on improvements and new additions to schools, which now are being closed, and quite probably torn down.
Show me accountability. I DO support our schools. I DO pay my taxes. I'm tired of no accountability.
March 25, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
joetowner says...
too bad Mr. Danny Colgan didn't have any guts to take a stand 10 years ago when he sold his ridiculous proposal by adding an addition to each and every school. When talk first happened regarding the closing of Neely School, opposition mounted, Colgan balked and didn't take the stand for what would have been the right thing to do 10 years ago.
And now, our current administration is trying to deal with that short-sightedness, and are being hindered by the actions of administrators who are no longer in decision-making positions.
We should have been doing this 10 years ago when instead we built onto all of our schools that in reality may have already outlived their usefulnees.
Thanks Dan Colgan, for your vision and leadership and leaving this administration to deal with the mess you left us.
However with that said, no reason to put us behind the 8-ball even farther, it's time to start thinking about the future of our children's education now, regardless of the bad decisions made in the past.
March 25, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gkozol (Greg Kozol) says...
The poster mamamia asked some questions that I will attempt to answer.
First, we reported Sunday that two school districts in the region are requesting voter approval of levies with sunset provisions. I don't know, statewide, how many attempt to do so and how many go with the permanent levy.
Second, Mr. Reeder's campaign finance committee hasn't released detailed information on its contributions, presumably because it hasn't met the minimum threshold. The next report is due Thursday.
As far as going green, this is a trend in the industry. Please remember, though, that the electricity that powers your computer is generated, by and large, from coal mined out of Wyoming mountains and belched into the sky here in Northwest Missouri.
We appreciate all your posts.
Greg Kozol
St. Joseph News-Press
March 25, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
voice4taxpayers says...
I am a St. Joe taxpayer and I don't appreciate Corey Vorthmann using taxpayer time to develop a campaign website and to organize a door to door operation in support of the school district's abusive proposal. Corey - please stick to our children's curriculum rather than try to dupe voters into paying even more than we already have in taxes for your flashy new schools and inflated administrator salaries. I applaud the efforts of the people in our community who are standing up against the school district's administration. They have been pushing us around for years under the banner of "it's for the children", while their salaries swell and school maintenance suffers.
March 25, 2009 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
joetowner the most recent debate onthis was in 2004 when we approved the $.63 increase. remenber mrs rucker appeaering in those tv commercial where she stood outside of a janitors closet and claimed the district was forced to use it as a classroom because of overcrowding? yes that is the wife of martin rucker who is on the current schoolboard, as for dr smith, she was teaching at benton high school and like most of the teachers supported the $.63 increase and what it was to be used for, building additional classrooms and incrasing teacher salaries
March 25, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Orliandor says...
voice4taxpayers -- What a silly idea. If you had any clue about the jobs of vice-principals in middle schools, you would know that they often have no time to even eat lunch, much less work on a political campaign. -- very silly idea
March 25, 2009 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
joetowner. "too bad Mr. Danny Colgan didn't have any guts to take a stand 10 years ago when he sold his ridiculous proposal by adding an addition to each and every school. When talk first happened regarding the closing of Neely School, opposition mounted, Colgan balked and didn't take the stand for what would have been the right thing to do 10 years ago."
that opposition was led with gusto by none other than mr. steve holdenreid.
March 25, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kuhawks says...
Can you really blame "Citizens Against Forever Tax" for using political expertise. Afterall, the Top Administration within the school district hired a strategic consulting firm out of Kansas City by the name of "Patron Insight" to run their campaign and conduct polls. Not only that, "Citizens for Children" spent $14,000 on a poll that told them voters were not in favor of a $45 million bond, yet they decided to put it on the ballot anyway. I am tired of having the school district say that new taxes are for the children. How about a little accountability. I will be voting NO TWICE on April 7th!
March 25, 2009 at 12:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
longarm45 says...
My family has lived in or near St. Joseph since 1848. It seems to be always the same, city fathers not doing what's right for our children. If the "reserve" can't be spent for building, it probably could be spent to increase teachers salaries for the GOOD teachers, and more computer labs, science lab equipment, etc. Then people would be HAPPY to vote a bond, etc. as they see the board using their taxes for the benefit of the children!!!
March 25, 2009 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BCotter says...
Is the school district's budget posted anywhere?
March 25, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bearie04 says...
im still voting no twice and i appreciate the news-press giving this group their time in the paper..it shows both sides but now we all know the school will have something to say tomorrow..its far though..thanks news-press
March 25, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
apple again I amnot proposing th use of the reserve fund, I am talking of future surplus funds produced by the current $.63 levy. this could be done with 2 simple ballot issues placed in the august election. by voting no to both now the sjsb could come back in august with 2 new offers. the 1st to replace the current $.63 levy with a $.23 levy for the general operating levy. the 2nd would be to set $.50 levy for building of new schools. if approved in august these 2 new levies could go into effect by 2010 and not disrupt the current budget.
March 25, 2009 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
10377586 says...
Sounds like Reeder is a liar and the rest of his people are from out of town. Why is anyone listening to them? Why are they in the local paper? I think Roe is the guy that ran the campaign two cycles ago with an ad for Graves stating that the lady running against him worked for Penthouse magazine. The truth was she had once worked for the publishing company that owned Penthouse, along with about 50 other magazines. Wonder how much of this stuff is true?
I'd also like to know what the commission is for defeating an operating levy proposal and building bond proposal. Does anyone know?
St. Joseph needs to make its own mind up about where we are now and where we want to be headed, not bicker over things that are water under the bridge. It's not the kids fault what someone did 10 years ago and certainly not the next generation of kids faults either. Lets move forwards, vote however you choose but make up your own mind, don't let out of towners and rebel rousers make it up for you.
March 25, 2009 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sidamo says...
BCotter, here is the district budget info:
http://web.sjsd.k12.mo.us/Templates/B...
March 25, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sidamo says...
Looking at the District's budget info again says that of the $114M total, 1.8% is for all utilities, plus some fraction of 6.8% goes to Maintenance for all the schools (including middle and high-school).
Also on their page,
"27. How can you really save money by keeping two old buildings open, and building more schools?
The District can save approximately $1.5 million annually by eliminating (through retirements and attrition) a variety of positions, such as principal, nurse, counselor, custodian, food service, etc."
I wonder how the high maintenance costs of Hall, Neely, Ruth Huston and the TMC fit into these figures. It is difficult to piece enough together to make a good informed decision.
March 25, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lifelongjoe says...
Why is everyone so concerned with "investigations" into Ken Reeder and Jeff Roe? Do you have problems with people investigating the school district? I guess St. Joe voters can't have any oversight if it isn't in your favor.
I am baffled at the fact that so many people aren't asking more questions. The school district has no strategic plan even in place! You want to call Ken Reeder and Jeff Roe liars....Melody Smith openly admitted to not having a strategic plan.
What if the levy fails and the bond passes. Than what? I asked the school district that and they said they would figure it out when the time comes.
For the record, these are the kind of things you want to know before hand.
And yes there are more people against both the levy and the bond. I know teachers and principals in the school district who are against it but can't openly say that because who knows what kind of hell will be brought down on them.
I will be voting no twice.
March 25, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
it seems quite a few people have attack mr reeder for his lack of honesty and his use of out of towners in opposing the ballot issues. if we are to use these standards to decide how to vote on april 7th, then lets look at the other side as well. the sjsb has continued to chant the mantra we have not built a new school in over 40 years, when in fact both parkway and hillyard schools are less than 40 years old, that makes the them liars. ms pullen said in a recent NP article that the sjsb voluntarily lowered the tax levy by$.05, when in fact it was mandated by state law, I guess they lied again. dr smith has said that if the $.63 levy fails it would devastate the budget, when in fact they are using $1.5 million generatd by the levy to actually run the schools, that is less than 1 percent of the budget, not real truthful there. those supporting the levies have hired a PR firm from kansas city to help run thier campaign, sound like out of towners to me.the supporters of the campaign are currently running tv ads featuring the rucker brothers neither of whom live in st joseph, looks like out of towners trying to influence the election. state law prohibits the use of disrict fund and the materials they are used to purchase for the use in a political campaign and yet those supporting the levies have admitted to useing school district supplies to help run thier campaign. since voting for what yes could cost the people of st joseph over $8 million year in flawed taxes and flawd plans i will vote no no. we should expect better from those people who work for us and are responsable for our childrens education
March 25, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
voteyestwice says...
howarddecker- By majority I mean that there are more comments opposing the school district's campaign than any other topic. Smurfit and Obama are close. The main point of the post was to simply point out that there are two sides to this campaign and people that are passionate about it reside on both sides. Also it was to point out that the time of day and the frequency of Steve's comments are irrelevant. What he does with his time is his business? You have posted in the wee hours in the morning as well. I just think to bring up a thing like that is ridiculous.
voice4taxpayer- Really? Do you think there is time for Corey, a vice principal, to do that during the day? You are crazy! Apparently you do not spend much time in schools. I am sure he does it in his free time, whatever time that is. People spend their extra time doing what they are passionate about and that is their right. Do not assume he spends your tax money by creating and running a website and not on educating children because that would just not be true.
Also I find it amazing that many people that are in the opposition are not seen publicly. There are few that are seen with Mr. Reeder at the public appearances but there seems to be so many on anonymous blogs. Is their a reason not that many people will stand right beside him on the news and in the paper? If you are ashamed enough not to stand behind something publicly that means there is probably a little voice inside telling you it is wrong.
Before you get on to me, I have participated in most things in favor for the campaign. Also, I am very public about my beliefs.
March 25, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BCotter says...
Thanks Sidamo.
$87.666 million for salaries and benefits annually - I'd really be interested in seeing the specifics of that. I am wondering if their retirement pensions are part of this, and if so, if it's similar to the packages the Big 3 automakers have.
March 25, 2009 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RH says...
I'm a former St. Joe resident now living in Kansas City. Don't let the St. Joe District turn into the KCMO District where the schools, etc are dilapidated and people have been moving to parts of the city so their kids can attend the Liberty and Park Hill School Districts so they can get a better quality education.
If you do not know who Jeff Roe is PLEASE, PLEASE do your research. Be afraid...be VERY, VERY afraid!! This man is ruthless and will do anything to ensure his side wins!!
St. Joe Residents vote yes twice...you have a wonderful school system that needs this to be more competitive and attractive as a place for businesses to locate and ensure quality education for your children and grandchildren. Best of luck with the vote on April 7th!
March 25, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sidamo says...
voteyestwice, consider that some who disagree with SJSD methods are School District employees who, in this free society, literally speak in hushed tones at schools regarding their opinions. Perhaps it is not a "little voice inside telling [them] it's wrong" but rather, an unspoken fear of being awarded the most egregious permanent label of not being a team player.
March 25, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lifelongjoe says...
dictating the future of our city???? are you kidding me??
You and the school district think you can scare me into voting yes????
It's for the kids it's for the kids.....
Tell me exactly how much of this money will be going to classroom instruction and teacher salaries.
They are trying to scare us into giving them more money for operating exspenses.
March 25, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
voteyestwice says...
If you are an employee of this district and are voting NO your haven't been paying attention. Salary freezes, closed buildings, job cuts, over crowded classrooms even if just one passes these things could happen. 2-4 schools closings will happen with or with out new schools.
Also what about the people who don't work for the school district where are they? I can tell you the vast majority of people who work for the district DO support this tax and are working very hard for it. They would be ignorant not to, especially if they like their jobs.
Thank you lawthewalrus for the information.
March 25, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
voteyestwice says...
Thank you RH for sharing your experience. I hope people listen.
March 25, 2009 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
well lets see if Iam correct if not let me know. the school district has already purchased the land for the new school proposed for the norhteast, and they used general operating funds to do so. however according to thier own web site and i quote "An operating levy provides money for the daily operating costs of running the District, such as supplies, utilities, transportation, technology, maintenance, staff salaries and benefits. The SJSD operating levy is currently $3.67 per $100 of assessed valuation. A simple majority is needed to approve the District's operating levy request in this case, SJSD is not asking for a tax increase or a new tax, just to make permanent the temporary operating increase approved five years ago."
if this is true what kind of message is this sending to our children?
March 25, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
the only funds the sjsb could have used are general operating funds.
as far as mr roe I guess he has as much right to get involved as the out of consultants supporters have hired and as much right as the rucker brothers who no longer live in st joe
if it was my earlier statement that got you so worked up you should reread it, I never defended mr roe or mr reeder i just said we should apply the same standards to all
March 25, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
considering that it was mrs rucker who appeared in the tv ads during the 2004 campaign claiming kids wrer going to class in closets only to admit after the election that it was an exaggeration ( lie ) so yes those ruckers who are willing to destort the truth to in order to win an election where is this any diffrent than mr roe the truth is the truth a lie is a lie no matter who tells it
March 25, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kidsfirst says...
This article was nothing more than a political stunt by an intelligent experienced political consultant. This so called "important meeting with the News Press" was no more than a successful attempt to obtain free advertising and promotion. Mr Roe is very talented and will pull out many more tricks to win.
He claims that the district was trying to silence people. Not so, this issue was announced over a year ago so everyone would have time to discuss and learn the issues.
It amazes me that this district is being criticized for being responsible with its money. If only Wall-Street was this responsible and accountable
March 25, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
i saw the commercials myself ask anyone else that was here in 2004. and it was MRS rucker not mr, before you go condeming any one. when my wife and I purchased our house one of the key factors was what schools our daughter would attend and how she would get there. we didnt go out buy a new house in an area with no school then start screaming foul because the rest of the city wont drop everything and build a new school in my neighborhood just for my child nor haveproclaimed that certain parts of the city are dyeing and so dont deserve a nieghborhood school
March 25, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Orliandor says...
And one more thing...check out that photograph! Those two look like the nefarious duo on the wrong side of an Austin Powers movie.
March 25, 2009 at 7:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gingeebread says...
Come on, St. Joe -- we don't have to listen to Jeff Roe and this guy from Cameron! Jeff Roe has nothing to gain from this except for money for his own pockets. He isn't from St. Joe, he just wants to be able to put a tally in his column for winning another campaign using tactics of defaming the people involved.
St. Joe -- stand up for yourself -- we need to vote yes, twice. Melody Smith has a plan to lead this district into the future. That is what real leaders do, they plan for the future.
VOTE YES, TWICE!!
March 25, 2009 at 8:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
1st this is not heritage. second the quote from mrs rucker and i repeat mrs rucker was from the tv ads she appeared in. mrs rucker appeared in local tv ads during the 2004 election standing in the doorway of a janitors closet and said it was being used as a classroom. after the election in 2004 instead of building new classroom the sjsd refurbished the high school gyms bentons 1st, that was where mrs rucker was teaching at the time. when the citizens of st joe complained that was not what the tax was passed for and what happened to drastric need for more classrooms the sjsc admitted there wasnt the overcrowding we were lead to believe and that he closet was never used as a classroom. it was the sjsd that admitted that the was not factual therefore a lye
March 25, 2009 at 8:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
howarddecker says...
voteyestwice
Go ahead and distort facts to suit your case on small things, like how many times I've posted article comments on this election. 14 of 82 comments in over thirteen months is NOT a majority my comments. Anyone can click, check and see.
9112steve
I appreciate and complimnet you on passion on this issue.
I do believe in quality education, but I don't belive this is a rich and poor issue as you mentioned.
I see how our School Distrct has wasted hard earned taxpayer dollars for levies over the past decades. I have promoted, supported, campaigned and voted for these issues in the past. A this time I can't support giving our School District a blank check. I'm not convinced there won't be more of the same.
Thank you.
March 25, 2009 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
To my knowledge- Summer School does not cost tax payers any extra. The state pays per pupil to the district which the district uses to run the Summer School Program. It is a wash...
...EXCEPT students get to have more education in the summer and hopefully have a good time also!
March 25, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
I do believe there were closets being used for classroom-learning disabled classes, reading classes etc.- I am sure not every building had to do this however.
I also would like to know who came out and said this was an exaggeration and where this took place (in print?)
I also do not people the people out East are demanding a school-rather the distric sees the need for a school in the area. Sound we not develop and build on land, because there was not a school first?? That is plain silly. Shoot half of Kansas City would be uninhabitated. (half- might be an exaggeration)
March 25, 2009 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
There is no need for a sunset clause. Let our community just vote to get our levy closer to EVERYONE else around us.
We should have a operating level at least close to the districts around us.
March 25, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
summacumlaude says...
WOW! It looks as if Melody Smith gave all of the teachers the "green light" to go ahead and comment on this story all day instead of teaching our kids. I, myself am sick and tired of this school district foregoing some responsibility and forcing new taxes on the taxpayers everytime the want something. Melody Smith and her cronies are more than willing to collect their $100,000 plus salaries every year rather than raise the pay of our teachers, or put some money towards new schools. The current administration has shown absolutly NO willingness to do some things that would spare the tax payers. How about eliminating transfers to cut down on overcrowding. How about redrawing district lines so we can even out the school populations. And finally, how about expanding and adding onto current schools instead of building new ones. I'm sure doing atleast these three things would possibly help from having to put another tax on the backs of the us taxpayers. I'm glad that there are people like Jeff Roe who are willing to get involved and help save this town from taxing itself to death.
One final thing, all of you on here that claim you are going to support the children and vote "yes" twice, should be ashamed of yourselves! It's pretty bad when you use kids to play on peoples' emotions in order to advance your agenda.
Oh, and by the way, having good schools will help bring people to St. Joe, but high taxes and no jobs will keep those student desk empty.
March 25, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
summa, please explain to me where at Neely the addition you propose would sit?
March 25, 2009 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
summacumlaude says...
Apple, I have a hard time believing that you are not a teacher. Why is your user name "apple", and you must study Neely very closely in order to list such specifics as "Neely only has one bathroom on the main floor." I will never be ashamed for wanting to keep more of my own money. GSTB!
23ga8er, I never said that I would add onto Neely. Would you agree that there is room to add on at Parkway?
I totally understand where you both are comming from. I would find it hard to think of alternatives to raising taxes in order to fix this problem if I felt that tax increases would fix everything.
March 25, 2009 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jackie576 says...
summa- I agree with you the teachers do deserve more money. Every business runs on a pay scale though. I know there are excellent teachers that have only just begun their career that I would consider to be better than teachers that have been teaching longer. The fact is that years of experience plays a huge factor in someone salary whether in education or any other career. Also, an individuals level of degrees is another factor. Are you saying you don't believe in someone making more money for the years of experience they have?
Also, I am astounded to hear you say teachers are on here during the day. Do you know this for a fact?
March 25, 2009 at 10:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jackie576 says...
summa-I was at the open house and was wondering where you would add on to Hall??
March 25, 2009 at 10:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
9112steve says...
Hello Joetownsouthsider
Your post is a fact. Your facts do not jive with the lies and the story others here are stating. The St. Joseph school district is doing a great job and your post makes it hard to say it is wasteful and not frugal, however people will continue to tell lies to fit their agenda. I worked to keep Neely in my neighborhood in 2001 and I am working to keep it alive and in my community again. I see no difference except I would like to see the least get more. It is a simple choice to make, you like to support our youth or not.
I have to apologize for some words that I used in my first blog today. I called Ken friends two dancing Monkeys and I need to take that back. I believe I have offended monkeys.
I will vote yes twice.
March 25, 2009 at 10:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neonym says...
I highly recommend that many of the people leaving comments on this issue download Firefox, and use the built in spell check!
I'm voting NO and NO,
There are plenty of buildings available for schools, and if more space is needed, convert and existing building.
So what if the district hasn't built a new building in 38 years?
Learn from the past, if it's not broken, don't fix it.
Our existing school buildings may not be spacious and modern, but they have one thing that most people in this town do not have, character.
March 25, 2009 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
joetownsouthsider says...
neo-That is exactly the problem...it IS broken! I suggest you take the opportunity to visit Hall and Neely this Sunday from 1-4 and judge for yourself. We can do better for our children than those buildings!
March 25, 2009 at 10:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
summacumlaude says...
Apple, I say we stand with our schools and our community and keep the sunset clause! Come on St. Joe what do ya say! NO FOREVER TAX!
March 25, 2009 at 10:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sidamo says...
SJSD wants fewer schools to manage because we have too many schools. Fewer. Less. Less students. Less population over the last 100 years.
SJSD permanently wants more tax dollars for less, fewer schools to service less students with less teachers and fewer employees.
Had SJSD kept the sunset clause or requested slightly less money, they would have diffused most of the frustrations because this would demonstrate empathy for the taxpayers.
SJSD has a lower levy amount than those other districts, but remember we have significantly more taxpayers than a number of those other districts as well. Plus, the levy is a small part of the entire budget - around 8% per my conversation with Mr. Huff (he didn't know exactly but was guessing, he said.)
So, be sure to step back to view the entire proposal.
March 25, 2009 at 10:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
plmmm says...
238er and jackie576, when considering adding on for more room/space you must consider all three dimensions. you add UP if there's no room to add out. and please don't bring up the ADA, that's what elevators are for. and it wouldn't hurt our overweight pampaered "babies" to walk up and down a few stairs. and apple will you shut the @%&* up with your question about why a new school hasn't been built in the last 38 years. the answer is obvious. the previous school board and administrators must not have felt it was needed. DUH!!! Vote NO TWICE as many times as you can everyone.
March 25, 2009 at 11:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AtHomeInJoeTown says...
NP, story idea ... What size cash reserves do comparably sized school districts maintain? Is SJSD being greedy, wise, or reckless with the amount of cash reserves they are maintaining?
March 25, 2009 at 11:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
plmmm says...
oh no. ms summers, ms roedecker, ms holman, ms albright, ms quinn, ms berryman, ms castle, ms wise and mr paolillo must be outraged that in my previous post i've misspelled the word "pampered". of course most of the above mentioned webster teachers have left this world. god bless them.
March 25, 2009 at 11:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
plmmm says...
apple, didn't your mommie tell you that resorting to name calling is a sign of a simple minded person. you can't even type my screen name correctly. do you really think adding up is less expensive than building new schools? you need to wake up a smell what you're shoveling.
March 25, 2009 at 11:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
The message being sent to the children is that the community does not desire to be progressive or look towards the future. The tax may indeed be passed onto your children but if that tax generates new jobs and a better future for the community thereby allowing you to watch your children build families of their own then it's well worth it. (I am not implying that you do not care but the thinking might be a little short-sighted.)
To Summacumlaude's point, St. Joe offers a descent education but old worn down schools and no new businesses will prevent people from coming so it seems we have quite a dilemma. According to money magazine, St. Joseph's job growth was 1.89% so it does not appear as though the low tax rate is helping that figure much.
To state that all outsiders should stay out is quite a board, bold generalization. Who is to say that you cannot live outside of St. Joe while your interest remains there? Did you ever think that maybe the Rucker boys were actually interested in returning one day and wanted to see their hometown progress? Ever wonder why they have not returned? Is it because they saw a progressive society outside of the walls of St. Joe? Is it because of the opportunities St. Joe offers? The sad part is they may have wished the best for their hometown and now they are being portrayed as villains.
The past "leaders" of the SJSD had little vision and less courage to follow through with what needed to be done. When will the majority of voters from both sides stop blaming the SJSD for what they have or have not done and look in the mirror? The SJSD did not get the community in this situation, the voters have done it to themselves. It takes an entire community wanting to progress forward and not just the city council, chamber of commerce, or school district. So, the levy was approved in 2004 but what happened after that? If the voter's took a stand, for or against, and stayed active for more than the two weeks before the ballot maybe miracles would happen.
If these are the actions of an All-American city:then I bet there's a lot of communities out there that are thankful they never received the honor.
March 26, 2009 at 2:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AVM1234 says...
Can any of the "no to forever tax" people find an example, anywhere, of a school routinely using a sunset clause for their operating budget? In asking friends of mine in other cities and states, that is simply unheard of. Why? Because it's a bad idea. However, much like having two libraries in town, it doesn't suprise me that some outlandish idea like that would find origination in St. Joseph.
Apple, I applaud your passion. I, too am passionate about this issue and I, too, am not a district employee, nor am I related to one. I don't know why the fact that we care about children and the future of our city is so hard for some to swallow.
Summacumlaude -- it's not too late for you to see Neely and Hall for yourself. There is an open house being offered between 1-4 on Sunday. If you think black mold infestation, raw sewage running through the building and daily electrical outages are 21st century education, I'd like to ask when you were graduated summacumlade and from whenceforth that degree came?
March 26, 2009 at 5:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gates507 says...
Summa-I agree that there is probably room to add on to Parkway. Are you suggesting that we do away with neighborhood schools? I thought St. Joseph made it very clear they wanted neighborhood schools several years back.
Vote yes twice (once per person, we want to be legal, ha!)
March 26, 2009 at 6:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
AVM1234,
My children WENT to Hall School...and your statements are a gross misrepresentation of the facts. There is NOT "raw sewage" running through the building, and I'd challenge you to show me ANY building in St. Joe that has a basement without SOME mold, mildew or dampness in it. I'd also say that there are NOT daily electrical outages. Perhaps there are some that occur, but people like you who purposely misrepresent the truth and twist and exaggerate the facts are part of the problem in our community. Are those buildings old? Sure...no question. Will new buildings take care of all those problems? Sure...possibly, but they'll come with their own new set of problems...and anyone in construction will tell you they can't build a new building as solid as those old ones. Hall's difficulties could be taken care of (Neely's too) with far less money than building new schools.
Besides that, how can you justify throwing away the millions already spent by the district ON THOSE VERY BUILDINGS that were supposed to have brought them into the 21st century...and was supposed to have upgraded and updated them? Do we tear down those schools, along with the millions spent on the new media centers, windows, electrical updates, etc., etc?
Still voting "NO" twice, because to do otherwise is irresponsible and unwise.
March 26, 2009 at 6:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
AMV1234,
I don't appreciate the district asking me to take away any control that "WE THE PEOPLE" have with regard to taxation. They're already receiving funds from the state...as a result of my state taxes. In essence, I'm being asked to pay taxes toward education TWICE...which doesn't sound fair to me. I'd also like to know where all the windfall money is that the casinos promised us several years ago. The district pushed HARD for passing the gambling issue. Where's that money???
March 26, 2009 at 6:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gingeebread says...
pops - really? You would advocate that the district spends even more money trying to patch up Hall and Neely? Then what? The reality is that these buildings are on the very, very, short end of their lives as viable schools. They have served well, with hundreds of kids within their doors every day. Patching up the problems would have a huge price tag, and for what? In a few years, our community will be back at the same crossroads, and you will be right back here on the posting board screaming out money was just spent on upgrading the building. It's ridiculous. The bottom floor of Neely is buckling and is warped. There is a manhole in the hallway. Go see it this weekend. Although there may be mold or mildew in many basements, I doubt that having a mold level that is comparable to Neely's is an ideal place to have kids every day. The music room is right next to the mold! Seriously -- you say that you have seen Hall. Have you visited Neely? Go on Sunday, 1:00-4:00. I went last weekend. Go see for yourself.
March 26, 2009 at 7:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
apple states in her post at 10:12 pm on march 25 " this will not have an effect on my kids...."
---------------------------------------
Posted on March 19, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
".......... I live in a newer area of town, my kids do not have neigborhood school. I have been shipping kids across town to old schools.........."
March 26, 2009 at 7:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
three3 says...
Hhmmmm....looks like the sjsd has been wasting taxpayer monies for the past year at least according to mocasenet. Looks like the judge in Jeff City has dismissed the sjsd's case for the second time against the boy with autism. Sounds like they don't have a leg to stand on, or it's just frivolous claims mucking up the system causing more delays and wasting more tax payer money on high dollar outside law firms. Let's see what they try to do next, bet they'll wait until after the vote. Why haven't we heard anything from the district about this suit before now? Before this was exposed in the paper? Hidden agendas? Transparency? My family will be...Voting NO TWICE!!
March 26, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BCotter says...
$87.666 million for salaries and benefits annually - 79.6% of the total budget. How many employees does SJSD have?
March 26, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
three3, case.net is only as accurate as what the clerk enters. It often does not reflect the entire reality of what happened. Let's say the district wanted ten things and during the course of the case got nine and the judge denied the tenth. It would still probably have a similar entry to what is there now. So, it really doesn't tell you anything.
March 26, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
three3, case.net is only as accurate as what the clerk enters. It often does not reflect the entire reality of what happened. Let's say the district wanted ten things and during the course of the case got nine and the judge denied the tenth. It would still probably have a similar entry to what is there now. So, it really doesn't tell you anything.
March 26, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AVM1234 says...
Still wondering if any of the "No to the Forever Tax" folks have found a district anywhere that sunsets their operating levies?
March 26, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildwest says...
An awful lot of time is being spent on concern over an individual and his group that seems to have credibility issues. There are 2 weeks left before the vote. I have a recommendation, spend less time on the blogs especially on articles with this particular individual and more time engaging the general public on promoting the cause. There is a large population base out there working odd hours that is not being reached at all. On the blogs, the same people are being debated, the same information keeps being tossed around and no one is caving to their positions. It is creating tension and in my view unwarranted shots at each other. Whatever side anyone is on with this, the bottom line is the present way of doing business needs to be fixed and improved upon. And more then one particular solution needs to be found. There needs to be a long term solution in the works in addition to what is being proposed. And not just for schools, it needs to be a bold mission statement and strategic plan to fix it all. And there needs to be high confidence in what is proposed.
March 26, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Sooooo....for all you who are upset about the condition of these schools that are so "terrible"....
Were all these issues there when the district spent all the money on new windows, media centers, electrical upgrades, etc? Have they just suddenly, in only the past couple of years, developed this horrible mold, heaving floors and raw sewage that runs rampant through the hallways?
Please...you guys are LAUGHABLE!!
Voting a resounding "NO"...
March 26, 2009 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
pops, a ten year old media center is out of date (sort of like the scrolls used when you were in school). I don't know the specific upgrades to the two buildings in question, but most of the upgrades were done to buildings not closing. Remember two are being re-tasked. So, do you do maintenance on a building you may plan to replace in 15 years (that's about the timeframe we are talking about) or not? You would probably complain if they didn't maintain them. The Army got in this problem. They planned to close a building and replace it. They stopped doing some of the repairs as it was not cost effective. But while they were building the new replacement they had to use the old one. Got in a little trouble ... old one is Walter Reed Hospital. Same logic applies here.
March 26, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MADMAX2012 says...
Please Mr. Reeder stop the onslaught!!! The District will buy you a fish sandwich from Long Johns everyday for 1 year...
March 26, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
238er,
I know both Neely and Hall were "updated and upgraded". I also know it's not been 10 years. Lots of money was spent, and now they plan to demolish those buildings.
There's LOTS of old buildings in St. Joe...it's an old town. I fail to see how those school buildings have developed ALL the problems the district is crying about in just the last few short years.
Keep in mind...the building has nothing to do with a good education. Good, well-paid teachers and staff members have EVERYTHING to do with a good education. In my opinion, the district is putting it's money in the wrong place....
Voting "NO" twice.
March 26, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Orliandor says...
madmax, you call that an onslaught?! 2 guys talking to the newspress? Oh and Pops...almost forgot.
March 26, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
Pop-it has been about 22 years that the windows were put in and over 8 for the addition to Hall. The addition to Hall was quite small. There was a lot of information at the Hall open house and I plan to go to Neely's this Sunday. I encourage you to go for one more piece to the puzzle
Also, on the Hall tour it was mentioned two of the concerns did just develop this year. Buckled wood floors in a third story classroom and a hallow area in the gym floor that has a unknown cause.
I also heard someone from the district say an independent contractor came through and said just to bring things to code and create handicapped accessibility it would be 4 million dollars. This does not address the leak, the fact the gym is also the cafeteia and 2 hours of instruction are lost daily, oe the dangerous dop off pick up situation-just to name a few things.
I don't think putting 4 million plus dollars into a land locked building is wise. Especially considering you can get a new building for 17 million -ballpark.
I wonder what Neely will hold ....
Take advantage of the open houses. The teachers are giving up their weekend and family time- the community needs to come out and see with their own eyes. Don't rely on others opinions and (unfortuately) the great amount of misconceptions and misinformation that circulates daily.
March 26, 2009 at 11:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
Why are two individuals from relatively local communities involved in the SJSD debate? Because they realize what is good for St. Joe is bad for them. They realize that they are competing with St. Joe for the new businesses and residents. If St. Joe is demonstrating a more progressive attitude, then that gives St. Joe a competitive advantage. Cameron is a growing community with a population growth of 9.7% and a housing growth of 9.6%. St. Joe in comparison has a population growth of -1.8% and a housing growth of 3.3%. (According to bestplaces.net) Do you think Cameron or any of the other surrounding communities want to see St. Joe improve? Do the citizens of St. Joe really want to remain idle, while their citizens, youth, jobs, businesses, and money continue to go to other communities that are willing to progress?
March 27, 2009 at 12:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Riley says...
I have been reading the comments on this article both pro and con and have just been shaking my head. Why is this community still thinking with 1960 mentality?
I attended both the Cotillion for Achievement ball and the St. Joseph Sports Foundation Scholar/Athlete ceremony. I was blown away by the impressive young minds our school district has turned out. In one week I got to see 30 young men and women who are going to make an impact on the world. Unfortunately I feel they will leave St. Joseph and make that impact elsewhere. Why should they want to stay here and fight the same old mentality their parents have fought? Why not move on to communities who are more progressive in thinking and are working to make their community a place where you want to educate your children.
And if these 30 brilliant, talented children ever come back to St. Joseph to help with their communities social or political issues they will be condemned for being an "outsider".
If we do not start working to improve our school system with new buildings, higher salaries for quality teachers/support staff and progressive technology then we can be assured that the brightest minds that the SJSD produces will move on and leave this town in the dirt. I may not agree with everything the school district has said in the past but I do know if this issue fails then we are going to be 10 more years behind. I don't think this community can afford that.
What a sad reality.
March 27, 2009 at 8:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
Mr. Norwalk is correct in the need to prepare our children for the jobs that require a higher level of skills in the fields of math, science and engineering. Unfortunately the sjsb doesn't feel the same way. The sjsb seems to put more emphasis on appearance than substance. While they have spent a large amount of time and resources on building only two new schools out of the desired 16, they have announce the need to freeze the funds used to purchase new textbooks and updated curriculum, and REDUCE the amount of funds used to purchase new technology. These are the real resources needed to achieve these higher skills.
Since the average ACT scores of the sjsd has fallen below both state and national levels, it would appear the sjsb has taken us down the the wrong path. A path that worries more about curb appeal than curriculum. Until the sjsb comes up with a new plan that focuses more on education and less on appearance I will vote no/no. To the sjsb come up with a new plan, prove to me that it produces the high quality education our children need and deserve and I will vote YES/YES. I would even support an increase if needed to meet this goal
March 27, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
Riley:Well put and thank you for bringing attention to these points.
I am a former St. Joseph Scholar/Athlete as well as a participant in Missouri Boys State and numerous other local, region, and state accolades. Upon graduating college, I desired to return to St. Joe but despite my efforts the jobs were not available so I was forced to KC. After 5 years and continuing to search for jobs in St. Joe I was finally offered a position in my hometown and I expected to take a slight pay cut. I nearly fell off the chair when their offer was 40% less than I was making in KC for an identical position...I declined. Why was that? Because the cost of living in KC is 40% higher...I don't think so. Is it because my qualifications were not there? Hard to believe, when I had several offers on the table that were willing to pay more than my salary at the time but the reality is I wanted to return to St. Joe, even if that meant taking a reasonable pay cut, which 40% was not.
Even after all the years away, I still contribute to St. Joe as much as I possibly can. My heart, soul, life long friends, and family are still in that community and I would love to be able to permanently return one day. Unfortunately, even after 25 years in the community, my frequent trips back, and slight involvement in other community affairs I am still deemed an "outsider".
There's a youtube video set to lyrics that state, "This town is my home; it's deep in my soul...Do you ever really think this town is going to change in your time?" I pray so but it's exactly how I feel. I encourage you to watch the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP9d4wJMOnQ
March 27, 2009 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
apple here is my source fro the act scores the numbers speakfor thenselves
http://dese.mo.gov/planning/profile/A...
as for the sjsb and where thier priorities lay
why have they allowed coleman to remain so overcrowded,to that it could have jeapordized these student education, when noyes is so close and so underpopulated? could it be they wanted coleman overcrowded to servre as a poster school to justify the need for a new school in the northeast? did the sjsb put political needs above student needs
March 27, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
Mcfnnng-
YES- you are probably right...the district (sjsD) probably has had a secret long term vision to overcrowd schools, place mold in the walls, make them landlocked and everything else- just so after 38 years they could claim the need to build a new school.
Why I have no idea why people are saying the district has no vision or long term planning...
GET REAL! The overcrowding at Coleman occurred due to a shift in the population from midtown to the eastside of town. This is the district's point and why there is a need to build a new school.
March 27, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
The district putting political needs before that of students' needs- that is laughable.
It seems to me the district is trying to provide students with what they need and is asking this community for their support-BUT some would rather play political games and bring every and any issue up they have ever had with the district in the last 100 years.
March 27, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
I never said that a new maybe needed in the northeast but do question the current location they have chosen. I also have issues with sacrificing 2 lower income schools and neighborhoods for the benifit of a newer more prosperous one.now apple answer my question if you can a simple act of minor redistricting even on a temporary basis, would resolve the overcrowding issue of coleman. what other reasons do the sjsb have for not doing thisl.
March 27, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
What location would you propose for the school in the EAST?
How are 2 schools being sacrificed? These lower income students will still have neighborhood schools. There is not a neighborhood school in the East. Look at the MAP there is not a cluster of schools together in the EAST. Why is it that people feel prosperous families/children do not need a new school. ALL children deserve a neighborhood school and a school that is not overcrowded.
Minor redistricting cannot solve this problem. Where are you going to redistrict the children in the East to...Bessie Ellison is not taking transfers-they are also full...If you have 300 children in the East without a school this is more than the total population at Webster (even with their transfers) Seems to me this warrants a new school.
The district has spent several years gathering data about where the children are and know the capacity of their buildings. So-since they have this knowledge- I'm guessing they know minor redistricting won't work.
March 27, 2009 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
mama3girls answer me this, if the mold is as bad as they now claim, I assume to bring up concerns over students health. if the bond fails and no new schools are built which 2 schools will be closed anyway and which 2 will remain open. if the new mold issue is so bad why did the sjsb wait so long to bring it up in thier reasons for closing these two schools. why was hall and neely picked to be replaced was thier age?
March 27, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
Please go to the open houses and see for yourself.
You will see and hear the many reasons each of these buildings need to be replaced.
I did not say the mold was the whole reason to close either.
March 27, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
so now the mold is not a major concern. why were hall and neely chosen to be closed and replaced.
as for the question why hasnt st joseph built a new school in over 35 years. could it be we havent been asked since parkway and hillyards. if the schools are in such deplorable shape why didny the school board ask for new school in 2004? as for the school in the northeast the growth that in area did not just pop up in the last 4 years, why didny the school board ask for a new school in 2004? and a redistricting of the coleman district would affect those in the southwest part of the district, the northeast part would have benifited by having smaller class sizes.
March 27, 2009 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
gee, let's jump to conclusions. Mold is but one of other issues. Things like lack of bathrooms, accessibility, etc. They all add up.
Should this board and district administration have to pay for the failures of past boards and administrations?
Last, you are confusing class size with school size. Not a single class has been said to be oversized in terms of students. Many of the rooms are undersized in terms of needs of students.
March 27, 2009 at 7:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Riley says...
I commend everyone for trying to convince micfnnng to vote yes for the sjsD issues but I think it's a lost cause.
March 27, 2009 at 8:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
so we should continue paying for failures of the current board, in 2004 we vote to increase the general operating levy by$.63 this money was used to upgrade our schools, the school board recieved that money but chose not to invest in our schools. instead they chose to hoard this money. there are other schools older than hall and neely that have simalar issues and are remaining open. so I ask again why was hall and neely picked to be closed and replaced while other olderschools remain open. as for coleman if the school is not overcrouwded then there is no need for a new school at this time in the northeast. since everyone is so concerned about the age of our school buildings shouldnt we focus on replacing the oldest schools before build new schools for what might be needed in the future.
March 27, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
Here's a wild, crazy, ridiculous idea but it would be interesting...
Shut down all of the other voting locations and open Neely and Hall as the only two locations:then maybe everyone would see the conditions of these buildings. What impact would that have on the success of the bond?
March 27, 2009 at 8:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
micfnnng says...
that still doesnt answer my question. are you saying hall and neely are in worst shape than the older schools. if so why? is it because the students of hall and neely were harder on thier schools than the others were on theirs
March 27, 2009 at 9:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
I did not say mold is not a major issue. What I am saying is if you go to both of these schools and see the MANY issues- it is a major concern.
I believe Humboldt is the only school older than Hall/Neely- and serves the same clientele. I have not toured Humboldt and cannot tell you the situation of their building as compared to the others. Some of the issues at Hall are bathrooms, student traffic flow, no cafeteria- just to name a few.
We do not need to replace buildings on age alone. The age of these buildings goes into consideration along with ALL of the other issues.
We all know when your car gets older and things start to go wrong that trend normally continues. Even if I had the oil changed ever 3K miles and the tires rotated etc. And nobody likes to pour money into their older car. (Some people do- but I would wager to say not by choice.)
We have a choice- VOTE YES TWICE.
In 2004, the 63 cent operating levy was NOT to upgrade (build on to schools.) That was the bond passed in 2000. And even if the old board and administration would have asked for a new school then- It would have been the same song and dance it is now.
And I beg to differ about the developing in the East- MUCH of it has taken place over the last 6-7 years.
March 27, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
I agree apple- GO and SEE.
March 27, 2009 at 11:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TonyRipesRoma says...
In the end here is what it all boils down to: I vote yes twice and you have the right to think I am a fool. You vote no twice and I have the right to think you are an individual so far out of touch with reality that you shouldn't even be allowed to use a fork without a training class. We could go on all day....but in the end the polls are going to decide whether or not Saint Joseph even desires a successful future or if they want to be stuck in a way of doing things that have forced so many people to look elsewhere for a good life. It is not rocket science....If you want a good community, the core is a good school system with up to date tools necessary to educate children for the future. Can't be done in a one hundred year old building. You know how hard Olathe, Overland Park, and Lee's Summit are laughing at us for even having this conversation? It should be a no brainer. Instead we are telling teachers to raise a competitive work force in environments that were conducive to learning in World War One! I would LOVE to see us trying to tell a carpenter to build a house today with tools from that era. But why would we? That would be so ridiculous that you would be foolish to even entertain the idea!
March 27, 2009 at 11:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
TonyRipes- I agree with you. I have a friend from Blue Springs- checkout their schools.
Anyone they have read some of the blogs and she said it is so depressing. All the negativity and fight that comes up in educational issues. She said it is enough to make her want to leave this town.
She said it is really very hard to describe the mentality here, but it is sad.
March 27, 2009 at 11:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jackie576 says...
insideout- We should do this! Wish this could happen. I also say to have the voting take place on the 3rd floor and have then come in the gym doors and walk up all those stairs. Maybe they could also vote during the 2 hour block of lunch to see how crowd the transition areas are and time wasted.
After seeing Hall I can understand the concerns and truly feel for the teachers, staff, and students.
One can only draw conclusions and form opinions after getting the complete facts. Have you talked to those that live in the education world?
March 28, 2009 at 12:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_O says...
I am also tired of hearing that old crap, "Don't you want your kids to have it better than you did", You Mean they DON'T ? The kids of today have it THOUSANDS of times better than we EVER did. How many of you had an ipod when you were growing up, or a computer, or a cell phone, or fast food every day, or a gas powered scooter to cruise the streets on, or FREE meals at school twice a day, or a big screen TV, and probably one in your room, to go with your own house phone, and $100.00 for a pair of Nikes would have bought myself and my 2 brothers school cloths, AND supplies for the whole year. And drive past ANY of the high schools to see how many students DRIVE to school compared to in the 50s, 60s, and even 70s.
If the levy alone accounts for $130 Mil a year, and we have 11,500 students, that go 180 days a year for 7 hours a day, then you have approx. $11,304 to spend on EVERY single student for 180 days of school, or around $9.00 per hour, per student. These figures only pertain to the levy amount, and If it was meant to be temporary then I know there must be at least twice that much ABOVE the levy comming in.
I think a Pprivate School would be a lot cheaper than $11,000 for 9 months. I probably have it all wrong but if so, then someone tell me an accurate $ amount that comes in to the SJSD Every year, and I can divide that number by 11,500 students to see how much is available to every single student per school year.
March 28, 2009 at 3:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
Steve_O - You are correct, most of the kids today are spoiled beyond belief. However, maybe if mom and dad were more worried about providing them the important things in life, like an education rather than the newest pair of shoes, state of the art cell phones, and a new car to drive to school then maybe mom and dad would have the money to pay for a new school and higher teacher pay.
Here's another wild idea...for all those that repeatedly bring up the reserve, maybe they should take their entire savings (reserve) and donate it to the less fortunate. After all, if the district does not need a reserve fund then why does an individual?
I have stated several times, that the SJSD is not perfect. However, if your child misbehaves do you take their food away from them for the next six, nine, ten months? No, you continue to provide for them, you stay engaged with corrective action and being a guiding force. My proposal is to vote for the schools and then stay involved with the system to ensure that the money is used in the appropriate manner.
March 28, 2009 at 5:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_O says...
Insideout, I bet you would be surprized an how few people have any reserve, we are in the early part of retirement and our lifes savings, and another $60k went down the tubes on major surgeries. Like I said in another forum, Humbolt is the oldest school by far, I would guess 150 yrs old, why is it not falling down, and how old is it's boiler, and if the boiler has been replaced then why can't they do that to the OTHER schools? I would bet that the 100 yr old schools could be used for another 50 yrs, like Humbolt, if not then WHY? Let's just give the teachers a $5.00 per hour raise across the board and that would make them a little more tolerable of their work place !
Steve-O
March 28, 2009 at 5:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TonyRipesRoma says...
Steve_O
Teachers don't get paid by the hour, they are salaried. Secondly, lets consider this: If I were a CEO of a company looking to relocate to a middle sized community to let my business flourish I would take three things into consideration. 1) The benefits the city would offer as far as tax credits. 2) The things for families to do in this new community. 3) The quality of schools in which the families of the community I am heading would attain a good education for their children.
The tax situation and entertainment factors are decent for a community this size. Saint Joseph has gone to great lengths to attract businesses and give them a reasonably cheap place to conduct their business. They have done well in terms of building malls, renovating, and are continuing to do so. The deal breaker here would be the schools. It is quite simple....most companies are not going to relocate to a community where their children are educated in one hun dred year old buildings. That speaks volumes right there about Saint Joseph's ability to nurture creative, visionary students prepared for the future. If you want the best for your kids, let them have the opportunities that allow them a great living and good education in a school facility that their granpdarents didn't attend and sit in the same desk.
Saint Joseph is not the mecca. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not want to touch the fact that for the past many years we have been losing population. And, businesses and enterprise are not going to come here when they can go one hour south and avoid these ridiculous problems all together. We should be ashamed of ourselves for even debating whether or not this is a good deal. People want to say ridiculous things like "This isn't putting children first". Let me think here......it is a facility that teaches children, is built for children, and is geared toward making children more successful. You are right. Not about the children at all!
Having a school with nice, modern facilities will not effect a child's ability to learn any more than you having a home without a huge hole in the entryway will effect your safety. Are you kidding me? I can hear the echoes of laughter coming from about an hour south for our backward thought......
March 28, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Orliandor says...
Tony, I just hope the majority of voters here share your common sense.
March 28, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
steve-o, the original part of humbolt was built in 1860. I don't know when the rest was built. It is not nearly as landlocked. Buildings age differently, are constructed differently, etc. I recall either neely or hall is built on a creek or some such water problem. Go on the tours, ask your questions.
Also, you need to relook at your math. The budget is 114 million not 130 million. I don't know about you but but an extra 16 million a year would make a difference in my budget (I'd be able to take the G-V to Gstaad for an extra couple of weeks of skiing). It makes a big difference on the average spent per child. Additionally that average is not really very correct as the IDEA requires the district to spend more on children covered by the act.
Your numbers make absolutely no sense. First, the schools run more than 7 hours a day. Second, the budget is 116 not 130. Third, the levy does not raise all the money. There are several revenues sources but the levy is the one we can control locally. Fourth, the district must accomodate all comers resulting in higher costs per child (see IDEA above). Fifth, are you willing to work for the paycheck that was the average when you went to school? I doubt it.
The world changes. Schools must change. When I grew up there was no internet, cable tv (available at my house), ipods, personal computers, nintendo DSs, nikes (at all), etc. Are all these bad? Then again, think about somethings like airbags, seat belts, good long range tires, etc. that have made our cars more safe. That's just in cars. Do get me started on other things that have improved our lives. When Neely and Hall were built there were very few cars, no buses. Almost all students walked to school. It that a good thing? Yes and no. Did it help the health of our children to walk to school rather than ride a bus? Yes. It is safer that my child rides a bus rather than walk to school on a busy road with no sidewalks? No. Steve_o from your posts I assume you worked in one of the trades. Is is better that we now have workplace safety regulations? Often IQ-2 reports on a single injury at Triumph. You and I both know there were nearly daily injuries decades ago in the meat packing plants that went largely unreported. The workplace is safer today. Should we return to the past?
Also, teachers are not paid by the hour. They are salary. Most put it many many extra hours doing things for school.
March 28, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_O says...
All sounds good Tony but you are leaving out the most important thing. This City don't want any business' located here other than banks, eat places, and conveniant stores. or department stores, can you remember when they were going to build a prison here, the one that went to Cameron, well the ONLY reason it is not located over by Rosecrans is because somebody didn't WANT it here, those dummies should have DONATED the ground for it but NO, we dont need a place around here that supports over 3,000 families. IF you have any info on the subject I would like to know what business' have moved to St. Joe in the past 25 years. There have been NONE of any size, in fact it is Quite the opposite. Just since 1984 a few to close are, Pascoe Steel, Sherwood Medical, Mead, Adco, Sutherland Lumber, Snorkel, 5 times,
Stetson, Big Smith, Thomas' Market, 2 Big Green Hills Stores, Yellow Cab, Quaker Oats, 2 Payless Cashways Stores, Best Store, and I can't even remember what all was in all of those buildings on South Leonard Road between So 169 and Pickett, and they bring in all of these small retail places but none of us have any money to spend, so I will promise you, Most of them are short lived, and we ALL know that they don''t want any BIG manufacturing business' around here, and we ALL know why too. Save the money that you DO have, incase you need to move someplace where there ARE Jobs!
Steve-O
March 28, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
Let us also remember that the type of jobs are changing- farming and manufacturing have changed. Those jobs do not exist in the quantity that they use to -hence we we continue to lose those types of jobs in St. Joseph.
We are not educated children for the same jobs there were 20, 30, 40 years ago. We are educating children for some jobs that have not even been created yet.
We must think progressively and create a future for our town.
March 28, 2009 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momswisher says...
apple ;; your ranting and raving and name calling and your intolerance for anyone who doesn't agree with you make a good case for voting no for me. Who appointed you guardian of this town. We are all very capable of making up our own minds.I know how strongly you want this and your belief in the sjsd is just as strong. But you need to understand we ALL have strong feelings about this ,be it for or against. You need to chill and stop talking to and about people like they are dumb or less of a person because they don't agree with you. Your getting way out of line with your attacks on people and their beliefs. They have the same right to theirs as you do. Boy if you don't take a chill pill your going to have a stroke or something.Your attacks on people only turn off most "on the fence " voters. You are hurting, not helping you cause.
March 28, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
steve-o, tell it to the guys at herzog, altec, hillyard (growing), teva (phoenix scientific), Boehringer, american family, cablevision, WRDCC (prison on frederick), Triumph, albaugh, friskies, lifeline, lowes, just to mention a few. If you educate yourself you would learn the vast majority of jobs are created one at a time. The exception to the rule are mass job creations.
St. joe is not some island immune to the larger market forces in the world no matter your fondest desires. Manufacturing has been in a large decline for decades. Companies often fail when the products they make no longer have a market (adco with pay phone booths) or other dynamics of the manufacturing process change (think costs).
March 28, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
MOMWISHER, yes Apple is very much "in the opposition's face". However, I have witnessed many times when this individual has recognized the concerns of the opposition. I too, have done so many times. Re-read my blogs and the countless times I have mentioned that the district is not perfect. My issue is that the vast majority of the opposition refuses to recognize the good that has happened in the SJSD but would rather state anything and everything negative that has occurred, which is not moving St. Joe forward. Instead the voters and the SJSD should live and learn from their mistakes. The voters, for or against, need to learn to stay engaged after the ballot to ensure that SJSD is being held accountable. Heck, if the SJSD got this much attention from the entire public year round they would have to hold meetings at the Civic arena. On the other hand, the SJSD needs to learn to be more transparent and engaging of the public.
Regardless, it is highly unlikely that any decision will please everyone but the degree of displeasure can often correlate to one's involvement (or lack thereof), understanding, and open-mindness. Instead too many people on both sides, approach this issue with a me against them mentality rather than joining forces in a constructive manner. The residential and business population will continue to decline as long this deeply rooted negative mentality continues in St. Joe. Why is it that nearly every community around St. Joe has experienced growth since 2000? Platte City has increased 23.85%, Faucett 13.15%, Cameron 9.7%, Savannah 7.1%, and ST. JOSEPH is at negative 1.8%. Why are people choosing these destinations over St. Joe? Why do people with the option to stay in St. Joe or move, often choose to move?
March 28, 2009 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
insideout- I agree with you totally. Good points.
March 28, 2009 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jackie576 says...
Get out there tomorrow and go to the open house to see the problems and ask your questions or for ever hold you peace. Anyone else going?
March 28, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
I hope others are going- the staff members and teachers probably would appreciate it. They are giving their time...
I plan to try to attend Neely's. Was at Hall's last week.
March 28, 2009 at 7:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momswisher says...
insideout :First of all it is momswisher. My last post didn't say anything for or against either the levy or the bond. Just that I think apple is going to extreme with the name calling and jumping on people that do not agree with her. As I stated we are ALL entitled to our vote, be it for or against, without being jumped on or called names or told we are dumb. I personally don't think it is any ones business why or how I vote the way I do. My reasons are as good to me as yours ,or hers, are to you ,or her, for voting the way you do or will.. Just saying the arguing really isn't helping nor is it good for ones health. You can be passionate about something without putting others down or name calling. It is the " I know best ! Your all so wrong and so dumb just listen to me and do what I tell you! attitude" that is hurting your cause..and frankly many are very tired of hearing.
March 28, 2009 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gingeebread says...
I guess that I think if anyone is "tired of hearing" something, they could simply log off of this posting and not listen anymore. It's kind of the same argument just going around and around in circles anyway. That's why I don't post very often anymore.
I plan to go to the Hall open house, as I went to Neely last week. I want to see for myself the spot under their gym floor that seems to be hollowing out, and the cafeteria issues. I sincerely hope that others will go to these open houses tomorrow (1:00-4:00) and get concerns and questions addressed there.
I do think that it is unfortunate that so many oppositional voices on this posting board are airing out all of their "dirty laundry" with the district now that an election is pending. It takes everyone's eyes away from the heart of the matter. It's a simple question, really. Do we want the leaders of our school district to be planning for the future? Should we start to replace our severely aging buildings?
I say yes, and yes, and at the price tag of around $4.00 a month, I think that it is a real bargain. Vote yes, twice. Let's keep this community moving forward!
March 28, 2009 at 10:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TonyRipesRoma says...
Steve-o
Banks, convenience stores, department stores, and eating establishments are still businesses. Aside from the ones that 238er mentioned, I am also aware of IVX Animal Health, Menards, and of course we cannot forget the KC Chiefs training camp, which for all intents and purposes is a business for six weeks that will rake in bookoo bucks for the economy.
I am not going to sit here and suggest the school plan is a perfect one. There have got to be flaws in it because human people devised the plan. But to suggest that simply because it is not perfect does not mean that we should not support it. I keep hearing these phrases like "fiscal responsibility" and "no vision for the future". I always shake my head in embarrassment when I hear these. Fiscal responsibility? When has the government on any level ever been able to account for their income down to the last cent? When have you? Are we seriuos to put these expectations onto a large industry when we cannot place these expectations on ourselves? I know of NO ONE who can tell me down to the very last cent where every penny has gone of their income. If for no other reason they cannot account for the pennies lodged between their couch cushions.
And then there are the people complaining about Dr. Smith's vision for the future. My question is as opposed to what? Their lack of vision for the future? For years this town has lost jobs, industry, families, and wealth while our officials have sat on their hands and stuck their noses in the air celebrating their acomplishment of being elected. Now, we have a school superintendent who at the very least has one up on most of our leaders for even having a plan. And we choose to nitpick at that plan?
Vote yes or no on ballot day. I don't really care because I am not so ignorant as to think I am going to change anyone's mind when they have had saint joe' politics ingrained in them for so many years. But I ask you what we have to lose by voting yes? More citizens, jobs, and money? We are doing a fine job of that sticking to our old ways. Maybe we can change that by putting up a new school or two, giving some construction workers a job, and realizing that good things don't come easy, and NEVER cheap.
March 28, 2009 at 11:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momswisher says...
1. apple:;So they are not from here and that makes the name calling ok? I guess my concern for your health by getting so upset offended you. Sorry, I will stop worring now.
apple. here are some of the "positive" things you have said to or about people in your post. All cut and pasted from your posts. Sounds like name calling and belittling to me...:; snakes, liars,,you know most of the concerns posted are not valid reasons for not going foward just noise.,Business that only look on the outside appearances of our buildings, and judge the community based on a "drive by" aren't the sort of business we need or want in our town.,,,Wonder why the only business we have attracted is Truimph, don't get me wrong, they did the "drive by" Noyes looks like the Ritz to those people,,,Hey you addressed my *&((&^* question - don't you think that says something that we have not built while others have. I have a better answers, maybe it's because if dumb ideas like yours,,, my god - what an idiot.,,
go back to bed,,Your comment about no jobs is laughable,,,I say to you, be ashamed for this community and where it is at, look in the mirror.,,you and everyone who thinks like you is my greatest fear about this city, ,,This hateful,untrusting, negaitive thought process,,, a puppet,,,,fool ,, I guess that's the just of it "what the community finds approporate" Look around this community, it's greatest asst is you don't have to drive to far to your job in Kansas City
March 29, 2009 at 1:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momswisher says...
2. ....This city and it's school and the people in it have never looked past tomorrow. , This town lives poor, thinks poor, and acts poor. ,,, I feel this is because St. Joe does not expect much of itself, and looks down on anyone who tries to expect more of themselves. ,,,Go ahead and vote no, watch this city get worse than it is. ,,,I beleive you are not the champion of the children of St. Jospeh you claim to be but rather more worried about the impact to the value of your property .,,,I beleive your real stripes come out in this issue, it all comes down to the impact of the property value if you lose your school.,,,The Patee House and Poney Express is located in a horrible location. People driving from out of town get a real nice impression of us when they go visit.,,,are there concerns, many, yours are not constructive or of any facts.,,,Why is St. Jospeh so brain dead when it comes to this?,,,
From the 1989 movie Batman, this line comes to mind from reading all these posts
"this town needs an enema",,, Far to long this city, it's leaders, and it's people have looked no further than tomorrow,,,I would tell you to stop posting, but it's entertaining, like driving by a car wreck.,,I would go back and keep wathing your X Files tapes.,,,I would think those that see the condition of our schools and where our children are learning would be the first to vote yes for new schools, maybe they would if they thought it would only benefit their child.,,,,An aging society with fixed income and larger medical expense and commuter who spend little time and money in the city.
March 29, 2009 at 1:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momswisher says...
Never said you were wrong , just negative and hurting your cause. I doubt very seriously if you have paid more taxes in this town than I have over the past 60 plus years,so please don't assume that, you have many times said you live in the Newer part of town, good for you. ((You have no idea what part of town I live in, not that that should matter)), that doesn't mean you have made , or will ever make or have the income I have. Assumptions are a dangerous thing. I am also NOT under the impression anything could or "should" silence you.On the contrary,I think it is great when one is so passionate about a cause. Only that there might be a calmer and better way to get your points across or that people might be more incline to listen to and be swayed by what you had to say if it were a calmer conversations.. Also just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean someone else isn't entitled to their own ideas and points of view. I just think you come across as thinking you know more and are "better" somehow than most people on this blog. I actually was trying to help you to get your point of view across to more people by suggesting it be done a bit calmer . I am done with all this school talk. I am decided, I just want to vote and get it over with.Good luck to you in your fight to get both past. However I still will be voting No & No.
March 30, 2009 at 6:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
s251616 says...
Sunset clause----Why would the school district want to go through this every five years? Running an election is not cheap!! Mr. Reeder will have to get another job to support his campaign every five years. Sorry, Mr. Reder, the district is not hiring any substitute teachers.
Look at the graph which compares the district to surrounding schools districts. I, for one, want what is best for my kids so I will be voting yes, twice. Put your faith in the district and you won't be let down. If you are voting no, then vote no and get out of the way so the rest of us can do what is best for our community and our kids.
VOTE YES TWICE!
March 30, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gingeebread says...
Did you guys see the new signs that went up today from the opposition group? They say to vote no twice for the children. Wow -- what a message. Who wants to vote against the children?
Vote yes, twice!
March 30, 2009 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
s251616 says...
Now let's knock Mr. Reder's signs. I'm sure he spent several hours trying to come up with that!
How does voting no help our children? Can someone please explain?
Do they realize that our children are going to be seeing those signs on the way to school?
March 30, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gingeebread says...
I know -- my son read it from the back seat of the car as I was driving home from work. Nice message to send to my 6 year old, huh?
Vote yes, twice!
March 30, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nbrlady620 says...
This group's misleading ads make the public think this is tax increase when it is not. One is simply to maintain the current levy as it is and make it permanent. This makes sense because it costs money to run a campaign and put a mesaure on the ballot - a lot of money! The second is a modest increase 22 cents on every $100 dollars. That isn't much at all. My question is, do you support your children's future by making sure they have an education which will help them succeed in life? I support education and what it can provide for all of us. I say people from outside St. Joseph need to mind their own business.
March 31, 2009 at 5:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
howarddecker says...
nbrlady-
BOULDERDASH! This is all about increasing taxes!
If you buy a car and have a five year loan, it's done.
Proponents seem to negate taxes already being paid by the citizens. Then you are projected as "not supporting our children" if you don't drink the tax levy Kool-aid. Bull!
There has been a lack of accountability for the past ten years of this levy. Why would I or should I give a blank check?
Has anybody bothered to look at the current state of the economy?
March 31, 2009 at 5:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
libertariansocialist5 says...
This is about more than raising taxes. The St. Joseph School District does not deserve our votes. The SJSD has picked the worst time to put this on the ballot. Their plans do not include building schools anywhere in St. Joseph except on the East Side where the rich live. The School District had over 40 to 50 years to build new schools and they failed to do it. Now they want us to pay the bill right now. The reason they don't deserve our votes is because the SJSD is in its worst shape at the present time and it is no because of funding or old buildings. The District has severe problems in multiple areas. For instance, two to three of the SJSD Middle Schools have horrible discipline and poor management. The teachers and staff won't tell you this if you visit but if you know the right people you can find out. Hyde and Benton have autocrats as principals who treat the staff so bad that they have the worst turnover rates of any schools in the district; Hyde has lost 15-20 teachers and staff and Benton is almost to that level too. Central had a teacher quit mid-semester and they hired a full time sub teacher to teach the students for a whole semester, they did not hire an educated, certified teacher. Discipline is not a priority to Dr. Melody Smith the Superintent of Schools who believes more in patronage than well disciplined schools. Discipline has not been a priority of the school district since Dr. Gerald Troester and Dr. Randy DeWar were the superintentents of the District. Once Dan Colgan became Superintendent, discipline began to decline in the St. Joseph Schools and now that Melody Smith has ascended to the post, discipline in the School District has become the worst in its history. The school district will not even fire administrators who are poor disciplinarians or ineffective managers they just keep transfering them or promoting them. Disciplinarian principals and administrators are few in number in th Distric. The School Board has no one on it who leads the campaign for discipline and because of this they have become little more than a rubber stamp for Dr. Smith. Look at the last School Board election, no one outstanding was elected who could lead the battle for better discipline and higher education and only more people were elected on the school board to rubber stamp the district's policies. They do not deserve our vote because they have failed the citizens, children and tax payers of St. Joseph. Kenneth Reeder is right they do not deserve our votes because the failed to earn our votes. The discipline at St. Joseph's parochial shcools put the SJSD schools to shame. St. Joseph Christian also has much better discipline. They have failed to educate our children, failed to discipline them well and they do not deserve our support on the ballot. Please vote no twice.
April 2, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
libertarian- you obviously have some personal issues here- but I'm game.
Whose responsibility do you suppose discipline belongs to? The school district- I would say not. It is the parents' responsibility. If my daughter is corrected at school you better believe she is in trouble at home and will think twice.
I do not suggest that classroom management is not an important element in education. A quality teacher has a strong handle on classroom mangement along with the discipline. I do not see this to be an overwhelming concern in our district. Will there be teachers that are stronger in this area? Absolutely, all humans have strengths and weaknesses and areas that need improvement.
As far as the decline in discipline in the schools...how about the decline of discipline in society in general and holding children accountable for their actions. (We have a generation of children whose parents try and rescue them from everything.)
Let us also add in the lawyers. Corporal punishment was not only widely accepted under the superintendents you mentioned, but also widely used with parent support. Now, heaven forbid, a child owes a little recess or has to stay after school. (Some parents call the school throwing a fit- even cursing at school personnel.) Bottom line- TIMES and KIDS have CHANGED.
As for St. Joe Christian- you are discussing a whole different population of students that come from homes with similar faith based foundations and supportive parents. And you are discussing a whole different philosphy of discipline that the district cannot utilize. In private schools, students that are consistently behavior and/or academic problems can be asked to leave. This lends itself to having fewer discipline problems.
You will also find that now- there are more and more children coming into the public schools with behavior, emtional, social, and mental disabilities. All must be taught and each brings their own challenges.
I am not sure it is fair to vote on the two issues on the ballot related to personal issues that deal nothing with the ballot. Afterall. who are you truly punishing and what will it change?
April 2, 2009 at 10:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
I see you talk about the administration at 2 buildings- you mention staff turn over. I am curious what time span did this 15 -20 staff members leave? All of these were dissatified with the principals.
Also, do you have data from other schools to support that these #'s are out of line with the trend in the district?
April 2, 2009 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
libertariansocialist5 says...
Trust me, the School District does not deserve our vote. The District does not employ staff on the basis of qualifications or experience it is usually nepotism. Staff members are hired in the District on a basis usually concerning who they know and how well they know whoever hires them. Not to mention the SJSD is using Orwellian Double Speak when it comes to the voting issues. Like their committee is called Citizens for Children, this issue is not about children at all but allowing the district to gain new funds to build new schools, new gyms and new buildings in the rich area of St. Joseph.
So logically they should be called Citizens for Progress or Citizens for Education but they use a Double Speak name, like George Bush, to convey their issues. All of you supporters are on the outside looking in and I am on the inside looking out so I know how bad it is in the district.
On the parental issue, the best basis for discipline is at the home from the parents and I agree with that. However, it is 2009 not 1960 so they must have stronger discipline standards to deal with the students who do not get regular or standard discipline at home.
You can find out how many teachers have quit Hyde and Benton, due to authoritarian administration, by calling the school district office this information should be public records available to all. All I know from my sources is that Janeen Boyer at Hyde and Jeanette Westfall at Benton are such micromanaging, authoritarian principals that they have driven staff out of Hyde and Benton. Staff would rather quit and be unemployed than tolerate unprofessional treatment from the administration. I know the 15-20 teacher/staff turnover is accurate at Hyde because of J. Boyer. I have only secondary knowledge of the turnover at Benton but if you don't believe me then confirm it yourself.
Teachers and staff working for autocratic principals and administrators have only three options: they can quit, they can be yes men and women or they can dissent and just do what they want to do and risk their contracts not being renewed for the next year.
The District believes in some kind of educational philosophy called love and logic, whatever it is, this philosophy does not advocate fair and strict disciplinarian policies. This is the reason why rhe discipline is on the decline. Years ago, downtown was pro-discipline and instructed school administrators to do whatever necessary to maintain strong discipline and the schools functioned well. They have not earned our votes and the only option is to vote no twice.
April 3, 2009 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
Could I be so bold to assume that you have firsthand knowledge of Hyde, because you have left there due to Mrs. Boyer?
You have mentioned two southend principals out of how many in the whole district? This would hardly change my vote.
On discipline again, do you honestly think the same discipline approaches used back then would fly now? When I was in elementary in at Humboldt the teacher put soap in a boy's mouth for cursing and made a girl that was chewing gum put it on the end of her nose and face the chalkboard. Talk about a lawsuit wainting to happen. The authority to do much has been taked out of the school's hands. There is only so much they can do.
Again, you seem to have personal issues and information and are entitled to your opinion.
But in my opinion, this does not affect the issues at hand.
April 3, 2009 at 8:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
On another note- it is not the rich area getting the schools. There is a new school planned for Hall and Neely kids and a school planned for the south part of town, and addition onto Skaith. I would hardly say the rich area is getting the school.
April 3, 2009 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jackie576 says...
lib- You seem to know something we don't being on the inside. How many teachers left at the end of each year you where there? How are these teachers "yes men"?
April 5, 2009 at 12:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
libertariansocialist5 says...
There were approximately 15 teachers who quit, transfered or retired from Hyde during Janeen Boyer's first year as principal. There were approximately 5-10 teachers who quit, transfered, retired or started working elsewhere during Westfall's first year and it really went to hell the next year when she had an incompotent assistnant principal. This man is a principal who has been bounced all around the school district,one year at Robidoux, one year at Bode, one year at Benton and now his first year at Humbolt. He is a poor disciplinarian and treats the staff horribly. The St. Joseph School District should have fired this buffon the first year he failed to maintain discipline at Robidoux. Every school this man has been Principal at has gone to hell that year in terms of discipline. My friends opposing the ballot issues oppose it because it takes out the Sunshine Clause. I oppose it because the St. Joseph School District is one of the lowest ranking districts in Missouri, it ranks 1000th out of 1125 Missouri Schools check it for yourself.
April 7, 2009 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
libertariansocialist5 says...
The state, school district and federal government have laws now regarding proper discipline and treatment of students. Teachers are not supposed to violate a student's three inches of personal space. Teachers will usually not even touch students except in situations that require it like fights and helping students who are injured.
If the proper discipline guidelines were enforced rigidly in St. Joseph Schools discipline would not be a problem. If a student is not supposed to be chewing gum on the bais of school rules, teacher's class rules or because it is a privilege they have not earned they are asked to spit it out in the trash and there is no problem. This is how we practice discipline in modern schools. If a student is cussing or disrupting class, the teacher will write the student and/or send him to the Assistant Principal and the student will in ideal cases receive what the student handbook reads as prescribed punishment.
Outlined punishment in the case of cussing would be: first offense hour detention, second offense Friday/Saturday School, third offense ISS, fourth offense Parent Student Conference, Fifth Offense Suspension, etc. That is all the St. Joseph School Distict has to do is enforce discipline strictly in their schools and there will be no problem.
The St. Joseph School District ranks 266th out of 525 Missouri School Districts according to according to www.schooldigger.com and that is not impressive. That is 50 percent. And people wonder why they lost the election at the last minute. Their schools are not working well under this idea of treating students like friends and not maintaining professional boundaries.
Most of my friends in this cause voted no to stop the phasing out of the Sunshine clause but I voted no because the St. Joseph School District needs major reform to work well. First, they need a new superintendent. Second, they need a disciplinarian, strong willed Board of Education like in Mid-Buchanan or Smithville. Third, they need to fire incompetent, autocratic or inefficient principals. Finally, they need to enforce the rules strictly and adhere to outline punishments in the student handbooks every time.
Disciplinarian principals in the SJSD are not praised for their work even though they are doing an outstanding job. Inefficient or incompetent principals are not dismissed they are promoted to their level of idiocracy. Authoritarian administrators are also promoted not fired. If you don't believe me about the deterioration of discipline and control in several of the schools in St. Joseph just go volunteer at or visit a few.
I have always believed that discipline begins at home and is best left in the hands of the parents. However, schools must have rules, the rules must be enforced, and if they are violated the students must receive strict punishments according to their schools' student handbook and that will restore discipline in St. Joseph schools.
April 8, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )