What a sad day for our community.

What a sad day for our schools you are right.This levy is still not going to help they more aless have said that in the other article today.They will be cutting services either way just a matter of time.They will keep coming back and back for more and more so why not do it right the first time?What a bunch of out of touch people in our downtown offices and on the TF they deserve each other.Maybe they should get together before they speak to the newspaper it seems oneside says the 63 cent levy is enough and the other say it isn't.How does this levy when it is not enough and services will be further cut with it or without it address the fincial needs of our schools?How many times do they plan on coming back to the community asking for more when they know how hard it is in the first place.How hard is it for them to not act like a bunch of school yard bullies and work with the community to gain TRUST and Support back for our schools and get it right the first time?And then move forward wit hthe long term planning for our schools.If this does not pass and they have to come back before the next 2 years they should just give up on a long term plan for the schools because the voter will never trust them and pass any thing for these people in a very long time. It is right in front of our faces and it is so easy to see.They are simply out of touch wit hthe community as a whole.

mm - today I am thankful that I do not live in your world.

Let's fix this come November! After that, we can get to work on passing the bonds and building the new schools.

This levy does not fix the finacial needs this april and the other article say this much.Apple how can anybody have a constructive conversation with you when you are still degrading eveybodys opinion.NOVEMBER DOES NOT FIX IT!!!!.It prolongs the finacial problem.

Trixie, do some research. The 63 cent levy in November doesn't fix anything.

mm1967 would willingly throw the kids under the bus so he can save a few bucks on his property taxes. It's all about money for him and a few others. You can couch it in any terms you want. You can pretend it's about the school board, Dr Smith, etc. In the end it is about selfishness and the twenty bucks a month he will save.

I am calling all you nay sayers out. It is about your greed, period!

Does everyone now understand why the decisions of the board to proceed in the last election cycle with both a bond and levy request were ill-conceived.

What should have been the priority was to ensure a fair and appropriate revenue stream and that could have been accomplished by demonstrating a business plan where such funding would have been directed at improving the educational process and standards of the district. Instead the district went off target with a grandiose "vision" that did not address many of the fundamental concerns over education but also fragmented the community over districting and school closings.

Most "sad" is the fact that with minor exception the district and those guiding its policies have yet to recognize its own shortcomings. Until that happens the road to financial support that the district deserves will remain rough at best.

Whois JohnGalt,
It is not about saving any money on property taxes it is about this not being the right amount on the levy and not the right time to put it on the ballot.Read the other article today it is not enough and does not address the long term financial needs of our schools.They will be taking away from the schools if this passes or not they have said this in not so many words in the other article today.What I am saying it need to be more and it need to have commuity support and input and they people who can make this happen are sitting on their hands and not engaging the community to get this owrked out.So you are wrong it is not about the moeny in my eyes it is about what is right and this levy does not address that.

Do you not understand what this article is saying?? How come you people who are so against funding our schools never can answer the important questions? It's always a big circle of rhetoric with you. There isn't enough money, period. SJSD is a PUBLIC school district. They are mandated to have a certain amount of reserves. They are mandated to provide our children with an education. How many of you who are against paying for our schools did not go or send your children to them? A very small minority - maybe. I pose the question to you again - WHAT IS THE SUNSET CLAUSE FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC EDUCATION?? If you want to have an end date to paying for it, you should probably have an end date for providing it!

"The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education lists the comparison of district tax rates for 2009-2010 on its Web site."

Really? Where? I've been looking for a list like this off and on for months. Checked again this morning and no luck. I can't find it with google or bing either. I don't doubt that a list exists, but government entities are well known for terrible websites. Can anyone help me out? I have family in other districts and am curious how their levys compare.

just_sayin

http://www.dese.mo.gov/

You have to look at it per school district...

Faerie,

I already tried that. When you click on the page for each district it gives you the assessed valuation, but the entry for "tax levy" is blank for every district. It's just "$." with no numbers.

Words from a former teacher here. Yes SJSD tax rate is pretty low, I taught in a school whose tax rate is now $4.85.
The concern I have is the way in which the District has approached the tax levy issue. They make you feel like you don't have the right to question it. Borderline bully tactics.
Could someone check out the rumor that teachers have to give up ther saturdays in order to go door to door to solicit yes votes, and teachers are getting there arms twisted to donate up to $500 toward the campaign??? Please check this out someone.

Matt,
I hope you are not correct with the bully tatics but you are correct it seems that way with some of us in the community.Also I hope the teacher are not being told they have to donate this type of money and give their Saturdays up being that this year some of the teachers in our school are working Saturdays to get ready for the next weeks classes.Thanks for you insight into this being a former teacher from here. I wish some more of the teachers here would post their thoughts and concerns on here for the public to see as well.

Matt, after speaking to my teacher friends, I am told that they are not being "forced" to give up their Saturdays, but instead being "strongly encouraged". I have a feeling that it is much like when my company "asks" me to attend an event. It is not like I have a whole lot of choice in the matter.

As far as the money goes, I have not been able to confirm that however, I am seeing my friends tonight, so I will ask.

If the 63 cent levy does nothing then why have it? Trixie's premise is flawed. While it appears from some reports that this levy is not the end all be all, it does raise some money and leverages money from the state under the finance formula. So there is additional cash.

Sure, it is not the silver bullet sought by so many. Is the better for the district to have the levy at 63 cents or none? Is it better to have the 63 levy with a sunset clause or none? If you were to talk with members of the task force (call them what you like) who are supporting the current pending levy request, they would agree that a higher levy without a sunset provision is most desireable. They are trying to perform first aid and stop the bleeding. Then they get a more detailed long term plan in place (or at least one that exists outside of Dr. Smith's head) so that they can rally the community to support it.

So many on this list seem to not like the current proposal because it is not the endgame. Yeah, but we are laying by the road bleeding. Stopping the blood flow is the first priority. Second will be getting the surgery done to repair the damage.

The current levy doesn't stop the bleeding it just prolongs it.It will also make the district to come back around the same time they want to put a bond issue for the new long range plan on the ballot and and ask for more of a operating levy and there we will be again with 2 issues on the ballot and they will not pass.So since there is plenty of time into next year when a levy could get put together with the communitys support that addresses the long term financial needs of the school why rush the revenue would come in at the same time.Do they feel they could not work with the community to gain their trust back and support ofr a levy next year?Time will only tell but I do not believe they have the support for this to pass and they are sweeting bullets right now.And they are going to have to come back next year and maybe they will start to listen to the entire community.I do not believe that anybody here wants our children to do without but it needs to be done correctly the first time not again and again and wasting 50,000 each time it is pput on the ballot and fails.

Often doesn't first aid do the same thing?

drb, this vote will do no more to put a tourniquet on the patient now than the exact same vote will in three more elections ....... this entire exercise is not any more productive now than it will be next year, the state will not contribute any additional funding...... the pressure to keep the next candidates for BOE responsible to the voters will be relieved by a vote before the election. this is the ONLY difference which will realized by this hurry to sell an insufficient .63 levy with a sunset.

this vote can be in november, and it will not supply any more funding until next tax year.

The $0.63 levy increase is a band aid for a cut we received from falling while suffering a heart attack - we need a heart bypass to save us, not a band aid.

Whether the levy passes or fails is irrelevant to the financial stability of the SJSD. The CFO says w/o the levy, the reserves will sustain the SJSD for 3 fiscal years (starting with the current year) at which point the reserves will be 18%.

The key will be engaging all areas of the community to help develop a long range plan for St. Joe's Kids.

From my perspective, the main issue with the current levy proposal is with the sunset - my fear is it will forever create the perception among the voters that St. Joe always has sunsets on its school operating levy - that would be a disastrous outcome for St. Joe's Kids.

I am also concerned that this will put the SJSD in constant campaign mode for the next 5-7 yrs. Around 2014-15, when the $0.63 expires the new levy will need to be $2.85 to sustain the SJSD the next 5 years - how in the world are we going to get that done if there is such acrimony over $0.63?

I want to be clear - I am completely in support of funding for our schools - I would prefer to over-invest as opposed to under-invest. My concern is creating the perception that sunsets are okay on a school operating levy. In other words, I am anti-sunset.

apple: "Simply put, not funding your schools is saying you don't care about your future, or your kids, or your community. "

A vote yes is a vote to underfund the schools. A yes vote is a cop out and truly an indication that you don't care about the kids or the community.

apple October 13, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. "Simply put, not funding your schools is saying you don't care about your future"

So, is funding schools w/a sunset a good practice over the long term - those experienced with education say no.

I am in favor of fixing the real problem - a disengaged community. Fixing the funding problem will follow that.

A steak served on fine china in a fancy restaurant is appetizing. That same steak, served on dirty trashcan lid in a sewage lagoon isn't so appetizing. It is all about the presentation and approach. The SJSD Admin & BOE messed up but appear willing to correct its course going forward. We need to engage the entire community for the good of St. Joe's Kids.

The district is NOT suffering a heart attack. Anyone who claims that there is some sortof impending financial crisis is either uninformed or attempting to scare voters into a yes vote.

Lets try to stick with the facts.

apple October 13, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. "Please don't go with the engagement story"

Well, the experts who have successfully helped countless school districts fix similar problems to what we have seems to think their real world experience says you are wrong.

Who do you expect us to believe - you or the experts?

Watch their presentation for yourself http://info.StJoeKids.com

yougotta is right - there is absolutely no impending financial crisis. The heart attack is from having a disengaged community. The funding is the small cut and the current levy proposal is the band aid for the problem. Let's fix the real problem.

nice try, apple. I have to wonder, are you really for the decision that is best for our children and our future or are you just for what you are being told to be for by the GOF/TF?

Correction on my last post. I did receive information about the teachers being strongly encouraged to donate to the cause. From a very good source, it is the Administarors( Principals, Curriculum Directors etc.) that are strongly encouraged to donate $500 toward the campaign.

Perhaps the district should considered as having two medical problems ... a serious wound and a heart attack. Just because you begin treating one doesn't mean you don't treat the other. One consequence of failing to restore the levy is the loss of state funds. If we lose say 5 million for 2010 we never get that back, reserves or not.

drbjr,
They will not lose this amount if they get off their butts and engage the community and come up with a plan for a long term levy that has community support before the end of next year because the revenue off of this levy will not be there for them till 2011 anyway so if they put it on the ballot next August if I am not mistaken they would still have the same revenue coming at the same time as if it passes this November and look how many months this gives them to engage the community and work with the community to get this accomplished to get what they really need to operate our community's schools.

I wonder what the headlines are going to be November the 4th if this levy indeed fails and if it passes what the headlines will be in a couple of years when they have to come back and ask for more.Anyway you look at it it's not going to be good.

Alonzo will you be investigating the teachers being arm twisted to donate tine and money to the levy?

matt, don't hold your breath for that one. The NP doesn't do any kind of real investigative journalism.

Apple ,the goal of the board and the admin engaging the community as a whole lets all parts of this community be part of deciding what is good for our school.It also allows healthy discussions to take place with people agreeing and disagreeing without anybody being left out of the desision making process.It also help the district with the trust issue they seem to have with the community.Specifically it is not that hard for these people in these positions to go to them and engage them in their schools and their areas of town.Get out in the community and let them see you do care what they have to say and listen and answer the hard questions even if it is not what they want to hear.Make sure you have all of the info need to back up what they do tell the public let them see it.But they're going to have to engage the community as a whole and not think one area or one side of this town does not know whats right or that you do not care what one side or area of town thinks.Don't shove things down people throats.Listen and show concern for these people concerns and issues.Explain things to them.What more would you like.

mm, one thing the district could have done to "engage" the community would have been actually having those legions of people ( not teachers press ganged into service, but actual citizen-with-a-clipboard ) knocking on doors>> not just targeting the likely yes votes. they should have hit the ground running and had people out in the community selling this. this task force has no traction, and is only trying to pass the flawed levy with election schemes instead of one on one contact with voters. this effort could have been organized over a nearly nine month schedule and the time could have been used to provide a framework of more trust. the BOE election would have naturally energized the public and more of the message would have gotten out.

frankly, even with great election strategy the issue is a flawed concept, at the severe disadvantage of a bad economy, bad news from the NCLB, redistricting, and school closings.

a no vote would preserve your right to choose again, after the april general election.

bottom line is the people of st joe spoke very clearly in november. the sjsd needs to learn to tighten their belt like everybody else. they obviously have the means to save money. 32 million dollars. they need to be doing more with less. deal with it, it's a sign of the times, they need to exercise some fiscal conservativism, but i know that is very difficult for a bunch of liberal minded people to understand how to do.

Ok Apple you think this levy is enough after these articles and admin have said it is not enough and they will still be in financial trouble?I do not understand your thinking.And engaging the community I mean the board and admin not the TF or ACE I mean the people in charge.And it is not the public fault the school are not funded it is the current people in charge and their misunderstanding on how they need to work with the community and biuld trust and get a plan to them that takes care of the financial needs of our school.And they have till August of next year to fo this and would get the revenue at the same time as if it was this Novembers election.
Question why restore something they have admitted is not the right amount and it is still going to put the schools in financial distress?
Here there thinking we will just come back in a couple of years and ask for more and you think they had a hard sell this time wait and see if this passes and it is for 5 years they will try for the full 5 years to get more mark my words and remember this because in a couple of years will be the first time they are shut down and told No and when they do get a long term plan and do the above mentioned and they put a bond issue to the public to biuld new schools they will get their 2nd NO.Now if the levy was for more and had the sunset on it I could live with that for 5 years but this is just wrong and doesn't address the issue and there are several other issues as we both have listed for this not passing Nov 3rd.And yes apple you have listed some of the same reasons I have.Might I remind you have also said you did not think the district knew what they were doing and were confused.

Not the point apple if you pass a levy for them for 5 years and they come back before it is expired it's going to stir the pot in our community and people are going to ask why and they are not going to give it to them and they will simply say why did you not ask for this the first time so many years ago.It will not fly and you know it look how hard this sell is going to be.

This is not fear apple they have as much said this and have asked their attorney thiss if they passed a 5 year levy if they could come back to the voter before the 5 year levy expired.I would like to thank you for not calling names and degrading me or anybody again thank you.

Apple I was not saying you had I was saying thank you for not.

As you have in the past.I was not saying tonight so do not go off of the deep end please.

As I have read these comments, they made me think of that great philosopher, George W. Bush, who talked of using "strategery," This district doesn't have any "strategery." A comment was made about forcing the school district into a political mode. Actually, the district always ought to be in a political mode. It should be continually working on ways of getting its message out to the public, election or no election. It should always be striving to put its best foot forward, to get some kind of community involvement. It should be a standard practice. Succeeding in one election ought to be a prelude to a campaign for the next election. To do that, you have to be nice to your employees and to your public. You don't one day turn on the "nice button," and be nice. It must always be there. People seem to be wanting some kind of a reason for the November election, with the sunset. I still look at it as a "feel good" election. That way, the district can say they came up with something. A comparison I have made is that it is the same thing as kissing your sister. I also find myself wanting to make reference to Spiro T. Agnew. My favorite term from him was..."nattering nabobs of negativism." Every time I read a condemnation of the no-voters or the "haters," quoting Apple, I always think of former Governor, former vice-President (until he was impeached), Spiro T. Agnew.

Apple you canjot stand to have anybody converse with you I was being nice to you and giving you the benefit of the doubt and now you revert to the name calling what the hell is wrong with you?I hope everybody see's that you are just a hugh waste of time.I mean nobody can carry on a decent conversation with you.I was giving you a complement by saying thank you.You must believe you have never called people names or degraded people before in you post.

Apple you remind me of Dr Jeckle and Mr Hide.You flied off the handle to soon and should have read my post first.I was thanking you for not name calling and degrading tonight as you have done in the past and what was the first thing you did you called me a idiot.Talk about hotheaded.Calm down just a little there apple.

Yougotta - my research tells me that passing the levy will restore the 63 cent levy that was taken away in the last election. Passing it this time will fix that mistake and is a good starting point.

No one thing fixes everything anytime!

Wow and double wow. No wonder this town is such a shambles. Hopefully some of you who regularly post here don't actually engage in anything outside of your homes. Sometimes the deftness of you really makes me sad. First nobody wanted the levy because it was too much and didn't have a sunset clause, now the excuse is 'it's not enough and they'll have to ask for more later'. It's kinda like a the response to a question about poverty I heard..when asked what kinds of things can be done to make a difference and help end poverty, a man said 'they could fix up their house and make their yard look nice,' referring to the poor. Some of you have nothing constructive to add! You argue amongst yourselves and I think some of you actually post things just to get the others riled up. If you are an accurate representation of this community, what a sad future is in store! Maybe instead of being devisive and contrary just because, posts should actually be read for their 'content', something learned in English class (in public schools). When actual valid points are made from either side, they are immediately dismissed and debated with something that doesn't even pertain to the point made. I have followed many of these threads regarding this issue. I have asked numerous questions, using logical senarios and am never responded to due to not rising to the petty back-and-forth. Let's do something constructive here people.

"just_sayin October 13, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Faerie,

I already tried that. When you click on the page for each district it gives you the assessed valuation, but the entry for "tax levy" is blank for every district. It's just "$." with no numbers."

Try this report:
https://k12apps.dese.mo.gov/webapps/reportmenu/SchoolFinance/Screen_6_Rate_Report.aspx

You can sort it however you like. I suggest sorting by the last one in the drop box, "Total Adjusted Operating Rate." When you click "Get Report," a new window will open and the districts will be listed in order of their operating levies, from smallest to largest (listed in the last column, "Total‎ Adj ‎Oper‎ Tax Rate‎").

St. J. is on Page 6 of that report.

Trixie
I am glad you believe in this and stand behind your beliefs honestly I do.But to disagree with you this 63 cents is not enough and they have time to get it right with the public and gain trust and support for a amount that is right for our school.I have seen some post that say this puts a bandaid on and slows the bleeding in fact it slows nothing and the out come will be the same our schools will not have enough money to operate.Then the board will have to come back before the 5 year expire and ask for more and really talke a look how hard this has been indeed it if does pass on Nov 3rd and then think if they come back and ask for more it would be alomost impossible for them to get the public to pass anything before the 5 year levy would expire.This is just logical thinking and it seems as if this would be the case.I maybe wrong but Thisis the way I would see it.One big mess still to come for our schools later down the road.It is not over yet hold on for the ride.

"nattering"--there's a lot of that going on here--from all sides.

It occurs to me that one of the core values listed in the District's official School Improvement Plan is collaboration, or rather a "culture of collaboration."

Core Values
1. Commitment to Excellence
2. Integrity of Actions
3. Culture of Collaboration

If we are to truly effect change in this district, making our schools viable and helping our students to achieve at the highest level they are able, then we must all work together. Regardless of income or location of our homes, whether or not we have children in school, everyone in this district needs to have the opportunity to be a part of this success--or failure, as the case may be.

It's sad to see that one of the strongest supporters of the District who posts here does not believe that we need to try to engage everyone in the community in a discussion of how to improve education, what kind of funding is necessary to accomplish that improvement and how to obtain and assure the future of that funding.

These are all components of a good plan. We have the first piece, courtesy of the BOE and Admin. It's a good plan and I believe parents agree or would agree, if they were to read it. We need the funding plan and we need to include the community in making that plan in order to get their buy-in. Anyone who cannot see that, either chooses not to see it or is completely out of touch with reality.

Link to the plan:
http://web.sjsd.k12.mo.us/Journey%20to%20Excellence/Table_of_Contents.asp

"apple October 14, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let me be clear, there is a difference of developing a plan, and then winning an election. If you wish to win the election you simply go where you know you have the best chance to win. You solidify your yes votes, try to win undecided but you don't spend your money and time in the no areas."

If you don't spend time and money in the "no areas," you don't increase your "yes" votes and the result is the same as last time--loss by a small margin. Look at Congress.

hcat,
apple care no more then her little area of the community and believes the rest of us just do not understand or know anything.Her /his beliefs are we will just vote no to be voting no.And what they fail to understand the rest of the community there is more NO votes then their YES votes in their little area.I will be voting No unlike the last time we voted YES/YES for several reason and this is one of them lack of community involvement as a whole.

Like you did not last night when you went off the deep end when someone gave you a complement?But the problem remains apple they are not engaging other areas and maybe there is a better concept out there in the community and they do not want to hear anything if it goes against them.Like I said in a few days we will all know if their actions have costed them the levy and I am sure it will for this and several other reasons.Did you get over your spat from last night since you think everything is a joke when you get caught between a rock and a hard spot.

Apple
I remember you saying you had no children in school and now your post above you are saying your vote is for my children as well as yours.

Folks, I'm TIRED of having to remind you that the district has obviously not NEEDED the 63 cent levy in the past....they've used that money to build the reserves they now have....they have NOT used the levy $$ to operate. That said, a 63 cent levy is better than a zero cent levy....which is what they have now!!
I still maintain that it's better to vote yes on a 63 cent levy with a sunset clause now, and let the district and the community mend fences and bury the hatchet. THEN, in 5 years, once the air has cleared, trust has been restored, and openness and transparency reigns, we can go for a permanent levy. Even with a permanent levy, however, I'd STILL work hard to include in the permanent levy a provision that prohibits the district from raising the levy without voter approval.
On another note.....if the district has "strongly encouraged" teachers to go door to door, that's a terrifically bad decision. I don't want to see even ONE teacher out going door to do. I want to see district leadership out doing that. I'd much rather see school board members, and district executive personnel, including Ms. Smith, out beating the pavement. The teachers have enough to do trying to teach students....they don't really need anything more on their plates. Of course, that's just my opinion....

Pops,
you are correct the district leadership and board are the ones at this point that need to be knock on doors not the teachers and principles.But if teachers do knock on your door no matter how you feel please be nice to them. They are getting forced to do something that just maybe they do not want to do.

Pops, you are right about that. It is a terrically bad idea to ask the teachers to go door to door. From what I hear, teacher morale is at an all time low and this directive didn't help one bit.

I ABSOLLUTELY will be nice to teachers if they come to my door....probably MUCH nicer than I will be to a district board member or executive. In my book, there are no more important people in the district than teachers and staff.

Yougottabekiddingme,
You are correct the morale at our school with the teachers is pretty low as well.

Apple, I might have agreed with your post about working where you can win, BEFORE all of the redistricting. The northeast was a victim of redistricting, too. Voting for that levy will not bring any return to what was, even in the northeast section of town. I do hope that the teachers are treated well, when they knock on people's doors. The longer I go, the more I'm convinced that if they hired somebody for long range planning or to get data for long range planning, they should have laid low and let that committee do their work. The way it's going now, it'll just keep people talking until November.Personally, if I were the administration and board, I would have wanted things to die down for a while before the election...and in the meantime, work on P.R. and community relations skills.

Apple I guess the mods did not think it was a joke they removed tyour comment.

I wouldn't bet on that one.I'm sure you've been told more then once about you comments.You seem to not understand simple logic or when someone is actually gving you the benefit of the doubt.Which I can show I am the bigger person and work and communicate with anybody but it seems as if you cannot.This is not about you and me its about the sachools and whats right for the schools and if people views are not inline with your we do not know anything or you revert to name calling or degrading.Plain and simple apple plain and simple.

Pops I respect your view point but I am not changing my position on this. In my view, the sunset clause for operational funding needs to end, and never come back to the table. We argue for what we truly need, gain the buy in for it, or we do not need it. I believe the sunset clause is the root cause of all the hinderence of district progression over the years. I will not support a status quo solution. And I adminately disagree with the financially distress argument to support the sunset clause. I believe in future state and sunset clause does not get us there. A new argument for a permenant levy will, not five years from now, but now. I do not wish to rehash this debate in five years. In five years bonds should already be in place for new buildings and a plan to address the future state of every building should be on the table. Stop gap is a weak argument and I do not buy it one bit.

Apple with due respect the validations to my argument are there. Time will tell in November how it will play out. The previous permenant levy supporterse literally trashed this present direction. Now we seem to support it because we lost the first go around. I am sorry I do not buy that. We should have the confidence to fight for what is need and get the buy in needed and we don't. That is the way I see it. We caved, we caved to the Reeder solution, the very person and group that was torn apart in January and even during some of the initial coalition meetings. Sorry Apple, we should have the confidence to get the buy in and support and we as a community do not. We argue for status quo and nothing more. That is no way to get to future state. I will not support status quo or a root cause to progression hinderance.

That leaves 52%

So if these are your numbers that believe the levy is to high it doesn't look as if this going to pass in November. I might ask you where you got these numbers?

I still think the financial well-being of the voters needs to be considered. St. Joseph is basically a fast-food economy. It is some of the higher paying jobs that have been laid off. That would tend to support the idea of getting anything you can get.Idealism of what should be is a wonderful thing, but that's the problem. Idealism is not always realism. What is asked for, should reflect what you think you can get. To this extent, the 63 cent levy with the sunset is all they think they can get.

If that's what the poll showed who could argue with it. But I might add that if the district would go out into the community with numbers and their outside auditor they chose to ignore on their recommendations and communicate wit hthe public those number just might change.Wouldn't you think.It's call involvement.So if those numbers are correct then they will have a very disapointing night on the 3rd.Why have you flip flopped apple first you dont supoort the levy and now it seems as if you do.What changed with you.

johncourter,
What you HAVE, presently, is a 63 cent levy WITH a sunset clause. You will NOT get a levy passed without the sunset clause and it is impossible to get a bond to pass now. It just is NOT going to happen. April should have indicated that clearly. If this levy does not pass, it's going to be a long, long time before it comes back to the ballot....believe that. This district will NOT get another dime out of this community unless they compromise, and start, today, planning for the future.
You talk about 5 years from now having bonds in place to build new schools. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!! What you have, right now, is the ability to reinstate the levy, as it was before. Anything more than that IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You can decry that....you can say how terrible that is....you can demonize those of us who are proponents of that move....doesn't matter. Either we pass this levy NOW, at this monetary level, and WITH the sunset clause, or we will go the next 5 years WITHOUT. It's now in the hands of the voters....people like you and me. Either we give the district SOME money, or they get nothing at all. What's it going to be???

Ok lest ask this question if we reinstate the 63 cent levy are they going to open the schools back up and solved the overcrowding they have caused?They want and the public want.So like the old say you scratch our backs and we will scratch theres.It's a 2 way street. Here especially if we are not going to be getting these new schools in the next 2 years.Not hard to do this it is just a matter of opening them for next years schools year. And I do not want to hear they are closed and gone and that is the way it is.This is not having a open mind.Open the schools back up and we will vote for your levy while they work on a long term financial plan for the schools.

pops, i do not understand your assertion that this levy fails, it will be a "long, long time before it comes back to the ballot".

i understand that you are one of a demographic who insists on the sunset. i absolutely do not buy into the notion that the NO/NO vote in april proved that there is little hope for passing a permanent levy with a more significant amount. the election was literally a coin toss, and i think the NO votes had much less to do with reeder and his anti sunset /anti tax group than it had to do with the economy. since the district did no exit polls it will never be known exactly what caused the levy to fail, along with the bond.

i must say that john courter does not demonize anyone in his comments. he argues a valid point.

I did, in fact, vote "NO/NO" in April. I did so because I felt it was inappropriate to put two tax issues on the same ballot, and I felt the district wasn't trustworty enough to trust them with a permanent levy.

You're right...Ken Reeder had ZERO to do with my decision and my vote....and that's the same for many, many other voters. My reasons have been posted over and over. It was a matter of permanence with a district that has lost the trust of the community.

I never said Mr. Courter "demonized" me, or any other "NO" voter. However, there are SOME...some in these forums...who have. Hope that clarifies things a bit...

No Apple but this is one of the reason do you not remember reading my post on several reasons why this levy would not pass?This is one of the reasons let me repeat that for you wss one of the reasons I stated.Go back and read before you open you mouth or before you think.

Speaking of demonizing, pops, your post made me wonder. Often Dr. Smith has been demonized for the failure of the levy in April which did not include a sunset provision. Now the District is moving forward with a sunset provision. Where is the criticism of Dr. Colgan for putting forth the sunset provision in the levy 5 1/2 years ago? Some have held him out as a wonderful politician so where is the criticism of him? If he was so wonderful we would not have had a sunset and this whole issue not be happening, the schools would not have been closed, etc. So why not blame him?

Also, mm1967 Apple, please stop sniping at each other. The rest of us are all tired of it.

drb..... apple cannot stop. if you had been here for as long as some of us, you would realize this. even JAH can't keep the red one on track!!! i do agree with drb, mm. you have to just stop it, already. just do not respond, and be the better person for it.

as for the criticism of colgan, there have been forays into that territory, drb. on His watch the school choice folly became a right, not a privilege. on His watch no re-districting was made incrementally, and became an albatross for the next administration. on His watch the sunset was touted as a single effort for temporary financing. this use of a one time, temporary solution was a bad idea then, one which i must assume colgan realized would never be his problem, but the next administrator's.

recall though, that the current administration had nearly three years to start the redistricting, but by doing so the argument for a new school in the NE would be diluted. the smith administration could have begun the work of retracting the district wide school choice decisions, but she didn't. again, the NEED for a new school in the NE would have been far less dire if this had been done.

the new school in the NE was recognized by the estimable chairperson ms. watson as the Most Important Task before the superintendent, and in fact, watson voiced her opinion that the drive for the new school was one of the primary reasons for smith's appointment.

with re-districting and a return to a more reasonable school assignment scheme, and with NO school closings the argument for the new school would have been moot. sadly, that was not the route chosen.

Unfortunately, Colgan was like so many politicians, create a problem for the future to solve. Makes you wonder about the health care debate, etc.

Honestly, Dr. Smith does not seem to have all the skills necessary of a superintendent. I wonder what building they will name after her when she retires .... Neely?

HEY POPS!!
You want a sunset clause on levy, so does that mean we get a sunset clause on providing the schools?

Put it on the ballot, faerie......if I have a vote, I cast it. Obviously, if an issue isn't on the ballot, it's not up to you, or me.

Not sure what your question was all about.....

drbjr....
While I disagree with Ms. Smith about a great many things, she's DEFINITELY a huge improvement over "empty suit" Dan Colgan.

Pops,
That is the same question I've been asking for the last 6 months to everyone who wants a sunset clause on the levy. If you want an end date to the funding, you must want an end date to the service. With all the petty bickering that goes on in these posts, that logic always seems to get missed.

For those of you who keep saying that the SJSD used the levy to build the reserves, so they obviously had enough money to run, OBVIOUSLY don't have to pay your own bills. In the world I live in, all of my expenses have been going up - utilties, gasoline, food prices... do you think the school district gets a pass on rising prices? They were REQUIRED to build reserves. Reserves aren't meant to be there so tax payers can have a break for a few years until the district spends them all down on operating costs and then not only needs money for operating but also to rebuild the reserves therefore asking for taxes again.

Look this levy passing boils down to a couple of things
1.TRUST and that is not there.People are already mad and have lost more trust.
2. This not enough to meet the financial needs of the schools for the long term and they will be back before the 5 years expire and they will not bew able to get anymore from the voters.
If this passes so be it but I think they are in for a let down come the evening of Nov 3rd.

Faerie,
I don't agree with your logic. Just because I want a sunset clause does NOT mean that I want the levy to end at any certain time. What I, and others, want is to have the district justify the levy in a specified period of time. I feel they need to be accountable to the public. After all, it's the public's money.
The district has NOT needed the money to operate with, so for the district to decry the loss of "operating funds" is not honest.

Faerie, in addition to the money collected locally from the levy, the district received additional funds from the state because the levy was higher. As an example if the district collected 6 million locally and got another 5 million from the state then they got a total of 11 million. Now they save a portion of that for the reserves. The increase in operating reserves was 18 million over 5 years or about 3.6 million a year. This is about 1/2 of the levy and an even smaller percentage of what was collected as a result of having the levy.

Also, remember the 63 cent levy failed the first time around also.

http://www.stjoenews.net/news/2009/mar/02/funds-reserves-raise-concerns/

The fact that my arguement appears to garnish heated responses validates it even more. Again Pops, I respect your view points, you have always held to one position, but I disagree with it and I disagree with your assessement of the community. I have continually worked on future state projects throughout my career in tough environments, and the present approach does nothing to address future state. Validation of that is what we presently have. We are in the 21st century, the community as a whole needs to acknowledge that and argue for the things that will help progression forward, not hinderance. I disagree with the segament of the community who cannot envision that. Technology moves at rapid speed through everything, the plants, what used to be done by hand, labor etc. Our kids need to recieve the educational tools that will help them in the real world 10, 15, to 20 years from now. Sunset clauses on additional operational funding levies do not us there. I stand by my position and even more so now. It is No in November, we cannot argue for what is truly needed and do not have the confidence to get public buy in to argue for it, then we have what we have. As to Dr. Colgan, I addressed that issue way back when about 5 months ago on here. I believe he has hindered the district more then anything over time on this very issue and should of been challenged back then. He wasn't and that was a community responsibility. Alot of people who were yes yes people back in January have lived here a long time and severely critisized the sunset levy, so my question is why was not the argument brought into play a long time ago? Dr. Colgan should have been challenged aggressively in his approach back then and he was not. So we have what we have now. It is time to fix it and put forth a true and solid argument for future state, not five years from now and not 10 years from now for new schools, because at present that is where we are at.

Just an observation...I have always heard that Smith was Colgan's choice for the superintendent's job. If that is true, why would he put his superintendent designate in the mess they are in today? I am one who has called Colgan a good politician. I have said that because he has an ability to read this community. A good politician can persuade people, but a good politician also knows when to cut their loses and take what they can get. The last levy with sunset was largely due to the school district not knowing how much money was coming in from the governor. That helped create the sunset. I have heard that it was Senator Shields whose idea it was to bring this sunset issue up. Now, Mr. Shields is not a slouch as a politician, either. He also understands you have to take what you can get from the public, in voting for revenue issues. One prime difference between Smith and Colgan is that Colgan had a public persona. Smith has none. She is not visible.

Mr. Courter, I, too, respect your opinions, and I especially respect the decent and respectful way in which you approach a debate. You don't lower yourself to calling people names, or diminishing someone else because of their views, even if those views are totally opposite of yours.

That said, I guess I'm still chaffing at the term "operting levy". That's not what this has been. I realize that's what it's been called, but obviously, and even with the district's own admissions, the past 5 year levy income was almost all used to help build the reserves the district has today. No problem....except the district still insists they need this levy to "operate". That's an untruth. The district may PROJECT they need more operating funds in the future, but that's far from etched in stone. Additionally, there's already been discussion about using the "operating levy" funds to build a new school. Hardly an "operating expense", wouldn't you agree?
The levy without a sunset clause was defeated. I know lots of people who voted against it because it lacked the sunset clause. I would HOPE that all those who voted FOR it in April would vote FOR the new levy proposal. Add to that number the folks who voted against the previous levy, since this one has a sunset clause in it. It should pass easily.

The money the district COULD have had will never be recovered. It was a stupid, short-sighted mistake to have put both the levy without a sunset clause (when they were cautioned NOT to do that) AND a bond issue on the same ballot!! Again, that TOO was something the district was cautioned not to do!! They ignored the sound advice, and look where we are.

I still advocate that the best compromise, for right now, is to pass this levy, and get the money flowing again. THEN, in the next 5 years, the district needs to do everything possible to gain back the public trust. I dare say if they do that, a permanent levy would be possible at that time....and maybe even one with an increased level!

Again, I appreciate the respectful, thoughtful debate.

pops, the numbers prove you wrong. Almost all would mean something like 90 percent plus. In fact, at best it was 50% and that does not include the additional funds the district received from the state because of the additional levy. The final number is south of 50% probably more like 40%. I disagree with your characterization. I do wish the district would explain its full rationale for the level of reserves. Also, they need to explain that capital reserves have to be kept separate from operating reserves. I know you don't like that but that is the system the legislature devised.

Look honestly pops you are right they district has asked if they could use this money to biuld a school and they know what their intentions are so why not just be truthfull with the community?Also pops you are correct this levy did almost pass in April but now you also have to throw the facts in there that they have redistrict and uprooted 1400 children and are busing them all over town,schools are overcrowded,and not to mention the hardships they have put on family's this years as we saw a first time poster tell us what hardships closing Neely did to their family.There has been no communication as well coming from the district administration offices as to what they plan on doing for the schools that are having a overcrowding issue,not one correnspondence from them as to what their plan is for this issue.Also remember there was children as certain schools when the NCLB Sanctions came down that did not have text books for several weeks and parents expressed concerns and were told in a week if I remember correctly and it took longer then a week to get these books.Now also Mrs Cheri Patterson more a less said we will not have to worry about transfers for NCLB sanctions in the future now since all schools will be failing.I beleieve in moving forward by all means but do you not think if you wants something from the community you would address the community and answer some of these issues above as well.People do not like to be told what to do and in this case it has been like this is the way it is and it is not open for discussion and they have not discussed this with the community.I also stated in some of my post that parents have called downtown to get some answers and got the run around for several weeks and never did get a return phone call or a return emial nothing from these folks and they want these people to vote yes on something.Look it takes both sides to work thes eissues out and when they are worked out and they put a long term levy that will address the future of the schools and work with the public then they will not have any issues getting a levy passed.I will tell what I hear in the community and I telling you just as I have heard it and people are saying they are not going to give these people anything and when it comes to the board they cannot wait till election for they can replace some of the board members.I voted YES/YES the last time and after seeing all of this and the district saying themselves that this is not the right amount and does not address the financial needs and the way they treat the public they better get it right the first time.To many things have happened since April for this to be as easy as putting the sunset back on.Look 170 some votes was all it kept from passing and now you have 1400 childrens voting parents upset out of those 1400 childrens parent how many do we think is going to vote I bet if you would check voter registration is probably up.

Apple and Heritage are correct on the failing to see the AYP problem coming. Look these folks claim to be professionals. If your doctor, lawyer or auto mechanic failed to see a similar problem in their area you would fault them in a new york second. The district administration knew it had a problem coming (perhaps not the magnitude). I wonder when did they know. Was it really not until August. I have my doubts. Should the transfer-redistricting-closing all taken place when the AYP issue was coming down the pike? Now factor in that over 50% of the AYP transfers never attended the school they transferred from and you have to wonder what really happened. (Example, a Webster child redistricted to Edison transferring to Field).

We also deserve to have some questions answered from the downtown administration on several topics but we do not get those answers.Also the long range plan she has devoloped is just flawed severly and in my own opinion is just wrong for the community and wrong for our children.You do not take children from Neely and Hall and put them in one schools.Now Neely,Hall,Humbolt,Hyde need replaced as well as the NE needs a new school.This would be a total of 5 schools needed currently and this is something they need t0 work with the community as well to get accomplished.But I am sure all of these folks in these schools would like a new school.But one hugh hold up here and that is the board and admins unwillingness to listen and engage the entire community.Simple word COMMUNICATE would take them a long way.

No in November not until after April of next year.I am glad to see some believe these are rants but when the truth hurts so be it.The district has created all of these messes.Not the public.

Apple I had to give you a thumbs up for you comment on the district needing to fullfill their promises and working with the community and hope they have learned from their mistakes.Glad to see you see they have made mistakes.

Apple, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how, if the money is restored, our schools are restored. The only thing I see being restored are raises.

I do not see this levy restoring our schools at all since it is not the right amount.We still will have 2 closed and will still be looking at further cuts for our children.Just my own opinions.

Not so

Other than raises what will happen? Will class sizes decrease?

I tried to give a thumbs up or down , but when I clicked on either one NOTHING happened! What is wrong? Is it me or the site? I checked to find out why all the police were at the Budget Inn this evening, but nothing posted? Why? Help anyone?

We say cuts may not be as hard what are their plans and what cuts will they make?I mean with or without the levy they will be making cuts stillAnd have said this much.Does this just shore up the teachers salaries,keep programs or still lose programms for our children?And yes drbjr I would also like to know is this levy going to make smaller class sizes again?Are they going to get trailers for the schools with large classes for classes can be back to the size they were last year?These are the type of things the admin need to tell the voters.

That's the problem people dont know and do care.

Where is the campaign funding report they have to release for we know who's money is behind this besides Heartland?Was this not suppose to be released by now?Has anybody seen this?

MM, here is where you and I agree. The sunset clause and an underfunded levy do nothing and should not even be up for consideration. It is more damaging in the short term, let alone the long term. They need to maintain their minimum reserves for catastrophic issues, and start cutting back.

Eliminate extracurriculars and sports to start with. But since the single greatest expense is personnel; increase class size to the highest occupancy level allowed and decrease teaching staff to the point where the increased levy isn't needed. Further reduce the number of schools and reduce the number of support staff. That is not retaliation, that is cutting the budget to live within their means. That is "belt tightening". Basically you get what you pay for.

The reality is that even should there be a 100% turnover with a school board election and a dismissal of Dr. Smith; a passage of a levy that will not contain a sunset or contain the increase necessary to provide the funding, will not pass in this community.

The dismissal rhetoric are statements that give everyone an out to say that's why the voted it down, knowing full well that isn't going to happen anyway. It sounds better than saying we aren't going to provide the funding that is necessary, and certainly without a sunset clause.

I agree with apple, mm1967 (WAIT....DID I REALLY SAY THAT???!!!!). Anyway, if I got the gist of what apple was saying, wearing glasses is much the same as the sunset clause....it's not the fix, but it makes things workable until we can GET to the fix, later on, down the road.

I'd also like to know, mm, if you're trying to tell me that because 1400 children were uprooted (many would have been ANYWAY, regardless of whether the levy passed in April or not), those 1400 families would vote "NO" on the current levy, out of SPITE?? Retribution?? I belive the district needs, and should HAVE, the levy. My contention was that I felt the public had a right to revisit that from time to time. Heck....I'd have voted for the last levy if they'd made a sunset clause of 10 years!! It didn't have to be 5 years. As long as there was a point for public review! Where you and I DO agree is in the fact that much of the current situation is due to the district failing to be open and honest with the public.
That said....now the public needs to be honest with the district....and PASS THE LEVY!! We want the district to be honest and forthcoming in their dealings? We want them to "build trust" with us? We have to have a LITTLE faith in them, and invest something in that "trust building". It's time to stop the bickering, and pass this thing, and get back to the business of educating our children.

mm1967, the campaign reports are online at the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Pops,
Yes I believe from what I have heard from parents and people in my community is people will be voting No because they are upset with the school closures and the redistricting that uprooted 1400 children and it may be spite but it may also be that they do not trust the admin and board,also their lack of transparentcy.This how our community is and we know it.And you are correct the district has not been upfront and honest and this is going to hurt them as well.It like John H said people are sick of getting things shoved down their throats and the things since the levy failed is what is going to hurt this levy.Now you have the folks that voted for the levy that also believe the sunset is not the right way and YES votes will become No votes.I totally agree it is time for the bickering to stop but this take both sides working together with the entire community and this has not happened as of yet.The current mess also needs cleaned up for the entire public to get behind a levy for the schools.We also agree we need to fund our school but we need to get it right for we do not go through this all of the time.Look I support school fuding for the future of our communitys children.My opinion is this does not take care of the funding the schools need for the long term and it really needs to and this is going to be a on going battle till we get it right.I want best for the school,children and this is not the best.We need to roll our sleves up and work together as a community and get this thing right.Some people will have to have a open mind and I am included in that and some people will have to willing to listen and engage the community(The Board and Admin) to get this worked out together and get the schools funded.

Well, mm....we're NOT going to get the schools funded anytime soon if we all vote "NO" because we're being spiteful about redistricting, uprooting kids, or school closures. We all want communication...we all want the district to be more trustworthy. We want them to work with us. We have to work with THEM, and give them the tools with which to build that trust. If we do NOT pass the levy....not a NEW levy, but to reinstate the one we've BEEN paying....we are no better than those in the district leadership we claim don't care about the kids.

I'm encouraging EVERYONE to vote "YES" in November. Put aside your anger, spite and irritation. The redistricting was going to happen anyway. Closing schools would have happened anyway. It's time to come together and give our school district the tools it needs to get better....to get past this situation. Let's put the division aside, and be a united community....concerned less about "teaching the district a lesson" and more concerned about teaching our kids....

I feel that people would be more for the taxes if we were sure it was going to the better education of the students. The new method of teaching has left children unable to spell and write in cursive and alot more kids these day even have a hard time reading. When i inquired about why they do not teach cursive i was told it was not a priority. I also find it very hard to assist with spelling tests when they send home 3 pages of words and say these will be on the spelling test thru the year and your child is expected to know them. what ever happen to spelling word lists and working in groups like double letters, silent vowels, ect. so kids can learn patterns. I dont feel children get as much out of education any more and that this school administration is more worried about new schools when they dont even take care of the ones they have and whether ms smith will get a raise and a new car. And why is it that teachers get left out when raises are due and they are the ones with the hardest job they are the ones that work with the children and have the biggest responsibility. Lets use our taxes to incorporate a better way of teaching so i children will be able to sign there name when they become adults and read and understand what they are signing

pops, your comment "we are no better than those in the district leadership we claim don't care about the kids" is remarkable close to the accusations i heard leveled at you in the last levy initiative. i recall a lot of finger pointing towards those who wanted the sunset, resulting in comments which got heated and insulting.

it is hard not to fall into that trap. once opposing voters got "what you wanted" in the form of a levy WITH a sunset it became acceptable to resort to the For The Children mantra? there are a plethora of reasons, and not all as shallow as one issue, a veritable spectrum of questions regarding administration, academic failings, flawed decisions, and poor leadership which can all be applied with absolute validity in the decision not to support this particular levy vote.

of course this community has to unite, some voters just prefer to see the unity, communication, and pure common sense come before an approval of funding.

not to beat a dead horse but i will repeat that this election has NO reason to take place at this time in order to provide funding to the district. even the headline on this story is inflammatory..... an article was published months ago when the levy expired, and now this re-statement of that issue is causing much more comment.

i respect your support of the levy, pops, because you supported a sunset from the beginning. just try not to give the impression that those who are voting no should feel their opposition is somehow less For The Children. that argument wasn't valid in the NO/NO vote and it is rhetoric which excludes.

I agree, heritage. However, I'm not...NOTE...trying to make this a mantra, as you say. I agree...that's something that was leveled at me, and others who opposed removing the sunset clause. I'm only saying that now that the levy failed in being made permanent, let's work in compromise to make it happen NOW. The difference is that everyone knew they levy would go back on the ballot. Oh sure...there may have been some who didn't think so, but by and large, most folks KNEW it would be revisited...and soon. Knowing that, I think most of us knew the loss of the levy income would be temporary. I feel if it failed before, and fails again, it'll be a long time before another levy proposal will make it's way onto the ballot. That said, we stand the chance to lose money for the district for a long time...not just a short temporary loss. It's time to get over the anger of redistricting, realignment and school closings, and realize that those things have not only happened, they would have happened ANYWAY....even if the levy had passed. To vote "NO" now is not in the best interest of rebuilding trust, and getting funds back in place.
I understand some of you vehemently dislike the sunset clause....as passionately as I disliked a permanent levy. I respect that. However, I think we can agree that a permanent levy, at least right now, has zero chance of passing. If we truly need the levy income, we DO have a chance to pass the levy now...doesn't it make sense to get the dollars flowing again sooner than never? We can revisit the debate over the sunset clause at a later time. That debate is OVER. It's either a sunset clause levy or zero levy. Which is preferable?

OK....that should have been "NOT"....not "NOTE"....

Sorry folks....my fingers don't work well on only one cup of coffee!!

Flintstone,
You are not alone in your beliefs. My father and I have been questioning why they don't teach cursive ever since my brother's teacher at Pershing said he wasn't completing homework and my father realilzed that was because the teacher wrote it on the board in cursive, but no one had bothered to teach my brother to read it. However, if you follow any news sites, you'll see it's not just our school district, but districts all across the nation that are dropping teaching cursive. They say it is due to the fact that we live in such a technological age; ie: e-mail, texting and typing have all but eradicated handwriting anything. I too am upset about the way they teach spelling. We never know what to work on with my son until after he's brought home the completed test! I say again though, it's not just our district, it's all over.

i think we will have to agree to disagree on the prospects of a new levy proposition and the necessity of passing this one now.

i do not agree that debate is over. in fact, it is not begun and should be done before a levy of any kind is passed.

My child is learning cursive. However I don't care for the spelling method.

I guess I don't understand....my children are learning cursive, and they bring home spelling words on Monday, and have to work with them all week. One day, they have to use each spelling word in a sentence. On another day, they have to "correct" the incorrectly spelled words. On another day, they have to choose the correctly spelled word from a list of 3 or 4 various spellings. Personally, I don't see a problem with how they're being taught to spell.
Are there different standards across the district?

Pops we am willing to work with them and do help our school alot.But as you have said this has to be a 2 way street and when it is only going one wat it kinda hard to work with them.
As Heritage has said the debate should have taken place before this levy was put back on the ballot and it did not happen.
I personally have to trust the people in charge before I vote to give them anything else.I had trust in them in April but they have given us plenty of reason since April not to trust them.
A little openess and honesty on their part would have gone a long ways and it has not been there from the people in charge.Simple thing these people should have and could have done to help their cause and they chose to sit on their hands and ignore the community as a whole.
On a lighter note pops I have the same issue with my fingers as well when I type and get going to fast and do not catch it before I post a lot of times but thats quite alright I knew what you meant.

Pops I do beleive that their is different teaching practices from school to school.We have friends with children in the same grade as our children and they do things differently at school then our children do at our school.I do not think the circulum is the same.

I can only speak for myself but you are not reading my mind apple so you are wrong again.
But and I stress BUT if this is what it takes to get their attention so be it.Just maybe they will wake up and see what they have done completely wrong.

Apple,
Nowhere did I say that was what I personally was doing this so quit reading things into my post.If you would have read my post I stressed the word BUT.But I bet the majority of the public does and you area is the minority.

pops thanks for the input its nice to know that some of the teachers are still teaching in a standard that children are going to learn. You should thank the lucky stars for your childs teacher there are not very many of them any more. Not all the schools teach the same

drb, i have asked many parents this.... does the sjsd use phonics, or word recognition? is the universal application of any one strategy or is there a blend?

Sitton Method. I think it is outlawed in California.

I am VERY thankful for our teachers...ALL of them! We have some of the best around, and I'm very glad. With the exception of one teacher, my 4 children (two grown and two still in school) have had the most incredible, outstanding teachers a parent could ever ask for!!

gak..... sitton is the anti-phonics poster girl.

you want my vote on this issue? make it fair. Im tired of taxes that punish property owners. half of the people that live in this town are renters and their children get the same benefits without paying for them.
Or, how about this? if you dont own property you cant vote on issues that pertain to property taxes.
Whats wrong with a sales tax? everyone spends money.

heckler91,
If they own any property such as cars,trucks,campers,and thing that is personal property is taxed for the St Joseph School District as well so whay shouldn't they get to vote?They pay school taxes as well for our schools.Statements like that does not help the cause it just hurt it more then helps.

heckler, since the Owner of the rental property would be taxed , it would be double dipping to ask for some kind of renter tax, even if it were possible to do so. this subject has been discussed at length before the last vote.

ok, what about personal property? you pay school taxes on that too. Why should you pay more based on what you own from hard work? My kids go to the same schools as yours. why should I have to pay more? arent they getting the same education?

heckler91,
Using your logic, let's tally what people pay in taxes, and only allow them to drive on the streets and highways accordingly. You're attempting to place a dollar value on democracy. Impossible! While I understand your frustration at people who pay nothing, yet gain benefit the same as those who pay a lot....that's our way of government. We're all citizens. It's a scary thing that you propose. I think if you were to reason it out, to it's fullest extent, you wouldn't be happy with the limitations placed on you, since more than likely, there are some who pay more in taxes than you. Do you want to accept them as having more benefits and more rights than you, because they pay more?

They don't get the increase unless they cut the administration budget, NOT the school or teachers, ADMINISTRATION ONLY. They mandate to stay at motels, not lodges, or resorts, they eat reasonable meals or pay for their own meals, they cut jobs by atrician in administration. When someone dies, retires or is fired, they not replace un needed positions (that is attritician) and then and only then will I give them one cent with my vote. The school board is still ARROGANT, UNACCOUNTABLE and all you that want to GIVE GIVE GIVE for the good of the children should listen for just ONE moment to the other point of view. They have a surplus, they get money, they DO NOT HANDLE IT WELL and then they have a high handed manner in which they report to the taxpayers, who this money belongs to. I believe they need to trim the fat, not the teachers ! The kids are NOT SUFFERING so stop saying that. It is nothing more than a tactic. They must learn to live on their budget and not outside their means that is what is wrong with this country. By the way just how much is your personal property tax anyway? 7 years ago mine was around 500.00 or so a year and now it is topped over 1300. My brother pays 3000.00 a year for taxes and that is too much. Stop throwing stones and listen like anyone would in any debate. We are not all just a bunch of cheap people who hate kids, we WANT ACCOUNTABILITY and we want it in a respectful way.

The word is attrition.

The district has one of the lowest per student expenses in the state. Just how do you define unneeded so we know who is surplus and need not be replace.

fer chrissakes, drb, you have to remember that most posters have not had the classic approach to roget's, bartlett's , webster's. attrition, atrician. it is a good "word"......

albeit, contextually inadequate.

hard not to get out the red pen. i admit i am as guilty as anyone on that front.

.

Good post, Teeter59. I wonder what would happen if HONEST evaluation of administrators were to come from their subordinates? I am sure it will never happen, but it would give upper level administration/board an idea of how their principals were handling the schools. By the same token, I wonder what would happen if the superintendent were evaluated HONESTLY by her immediate subordinates. I also know that will never happen. But, in a round about way, it could lead to more effective teaching techniques. In allowing teachers to have a part in the evaluation of principals, they would also be evaluating curriculums that are offered and the effectiveness of how those curriculums are to be presented. The teacher can only teach the curriculum which he/she is told to teach, in the way that he/she is told to teach it.

no apple we just have worse administrators then we did and they are not trusted.They have created this problem for themselves no matter how you personally see it and you have said this much yourself in past post.It has nothing to do with our children being worth less but keep telling yourself that if it make you feel better about yourself.

One of the BIG problems with the 'tax' is that it's based solely on 'property owners'. As a suggestion, the school board might consider basing the 'tax' on residency within the city with a aurcharge for 'out of city' children.
Additionally, the board seems to have taken on an air of aloofness in 'not' explaining things to the 'taxpayers', like...closing highly rated schools because they need office space...yet having the Woodson Building sit more than half empty...
AND...maybe it's time school board members started to be chosen from a pool of 'commoners' rather than from the 'society page'...

donshere,
I have to strongly agree with you about the board selection and them not explaining things to the tax payers.At least common folks would be in touch with reality and whats going on around them unlike the people we have in there now.I like the society page comment.I think that is actuallt what it boils down to with these people in charge what wil be my legend in society here in St Joseph.I think they are in for a surprise as to what their legend is going to be and I do not think they are going to be remembered kindly.

I agree with apple on this one...let's fund our schools. We were doing it before....we can do it again. Give the district a chance to redeem themselves. Where apple and I differ is only in whether I wish to revisit the levy periodically. Apple wishes to see the levy be permanent. I don't even disagree with that, if there were provisions to prevent the district from just raising the levy amount without the public approval. I feel the 63 cent levy is appropriate...and may, in fact, be too low. I still say the good compromise was to reinstate the levy...get the money rolling again. We can revisit the permanence debate later.

The levy is to low and it will be revisited several times in the next 5 years if this thing passes and nothing further will be passed.Services and programs will still be cut for our children and our schools.Do not forget this will also affect the long term planning for our schools because we will always be addressing the financial needs of our district.
The district has said this levy will still make them a distressed district so why pass something that is not right?
This levy still leaves the district in financial trouble.

At this point isn't something better than nothing?

Let see if they are going to be distressed with or without the levy it makes no sence to pass it when you have several month to get it right and would still getthe revenue at the same time as if it was to pass in November.Lets also see there seems to be a little something else here as well they said they have 36 million in reserve that will carry them for a least 2 years.So they have plenty of time to get this levy right with community involvement and so why are they pushing so hard for this levy it must be to use some of the reserve to biuld a school because it makes not sence to push something through that does not address the issue.And if it is a underlying reason to biuld a school wit hoperating money as the district asked their attorney and it is biult to the NE this in iself would pen a can of worms up.NO IN NOVEMBER

No I disagree with that thought process. Something is not always better than nothing. The "nothing" argument I do not buy into. There are other options available to manage and I am one who has stated this before, I do not believe in the "black cloud" scenario. The argument for what is truly need should be back on the table and the sunset clause approach should fade away with regards to this type of funding. With the amount of time and effort supposedly going into getting this passed, I would think there should be enough confidence to gain public buy in to argue for what is truly needed. There is not. This desparation thought process in my view needs to stop and the approach should be to argue for what is needed for true future state. Donshere brings up an excellent point about property taxes. The state formula covers what is expended by the state, not by property taxes. Property taxes are a local issue and if we cannot operate the day to day business on existing resources, then there should be an argument on the table for redistribution of the property tax base to offset that. As to the state formula, it has been stated that St Joe will be better off with the new one instead of the old one. Until I see or am presented strong validations that the district losses out, then what has been stated is a true assessment in my view. Several political leaders appear to have back that statement and to date they have not been proven wrong. And to date some of those individuals have given a scenario of it works, as opposed to anyone locally involved with this and I have asked several times. It seems this formula is a complicated process that few locally even understand and until someone explains to me the people who back the new formula are wrong and can validate it, I will stay with their viewpoint.
As far as leverage, what leverage? My rationale for voting no is not "holding anything hostage." I will not support a process that has been proven to be ineffective. I want my tax dollars for this to go to progression and improvement now. It is No in November for me and it will be No until the proper argument comes back to the table. Find the confidence to engage the community to get the buy in for what is truly needed or we do not need it. That is the way I see it. Argue for future state and the proper process to get there and accept nothing less.

Apple this is not what we are saying we are saying our children are worth more. And by meaning more this is not the right levy for our long term financial future of our schools.And don't you ever judge me as a parent because I am a very great father to my children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.This is about making things better for them not the STATUS QUO if you and the TF want to settle for the status quo for your children it must mean you all think your children are worth less not the ones of us who know this is not the right direction and does not provide for our schools.Do you not know how to red the district themselves know and have said this levy will still put them in financal distress before the levy would expire.NO IN NOVEMEBER for this reason ansd several other reason as well.You can continue to flip flop if you want to.

You are a waste of time trying to get anybody point accross then yours I m glad you would settle for less but I beleive this is wrong and the children desreve better.So apple since you said you are a woman who are you Mr Smith,Mrs Patterson,Mrs Kosek,Maybe a principle or a board member.I would never thought a woman would have things come out of their mouths as such things have yours over the last few months.

No apple what this means and I know you have a hardtime understanding things it means get the levy right and the amount right work with the community and do it right the first time instead of coming back and back and back and fighting this battle everytime.So this is how they are worth more get it right the first time.

No apple just hoping you work for the district.

Apple, I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to "show your kids your property tax statement". I have no kids for the record and the comment is irrevevlant to my position on this issue. I have all the validations I need to base my stand on. The present direction I believe is not the correct way to argue this. You want to defend the district and the group who is sponsoring this, go for it, but I am not buying into their position on this one bit. The same people trashed this direction back in January and most of them still believe they need a permenant levy, so they should argue for it. The district also should take ownership of what they need and argue for it, they have not. A group of 600 people that goes out and about try and convince a community that .63 cents with a 5 year sunset is the way go should have the confidence to convince the community for vote for a permenant solution, and it appears they do not. It is very evident in what I interpeted as a very condenscending approach of another opinion piece on this. I also find it interesting that most of us who are not in favor of the present direction have the confidence to put our names to what we have to say and we stand by it. I stand by my argument and the only reason I have not organized an official opposition is I do not have the time to do, I am not here most of the week and there are more important progressive things for me to do when I am here. I spend some time posting on here because there are countless people out who do read this forum and do not respond. It is No in November for me. Argue for what is truly needed now and gain the buy in to get it moving or we do not need it. We either begin move to future state now and take the steps to progress, or we stay stagnant. The present direction does not get us there.

I agree with JohnCourter, in that there are people who read these posts, and never post themselves. That said, I will reiterate what I've said before.

Many people have lost faith in the district leadership, for a variety of reasons. I think EVERYONE who understands school funding knows we need a levy. We MUST have a levy. I know, in my personal case, I feel the .63 cent levy was fine. What I did NOT want, however, was a school district leadership wielding a blank check. That's what I felt a permanent levy would be. With a permanent levy and no controls, it's possible that today, they'd have had a .63 cent levy. In 6 months or a year, that .63 cents wouldn't be enough. Suddenly, the taxpayers in St. Joseph would find themselves paying .75 cents, because of increased costs of conducting business. Awhile after than, it would be .80 cents, and on and on. With a permanent levy, and no restraints, it would be a virtual blank check. With a sunset clause, the people would have no recourse with which to stop runaway spending, and a corrosponding limitless rise in their taxes.

All that said, I would support the levy in either one of two conditions:

1) A levy with a sunset clause, set at, perhaps .75 cents, to be revisited in 5 years for renewal and/or increase

2) A permanent levy without a sunset clause, set at .75 cents, but could NOT be raised without the approval of the voters

With all the wrangling that's gone on for nearly a year, I'd say the situation with the school district leadership has come to the forefront of public awareness. For any and all board members who might be reading these posts, please know that the perception of the people is that the district has been less than open and honest with the community. While you may not feel that's true, you MUST understand that the general public perception is the district has not been transparent and up-front in the past. Therefore, whether you like it or not...there is a lack of trust in the school district leadership that exists on the part of the public. The district leadership MUST address the trust issue, if they intend to EVER gain the support of the local community. How do you do that? I don't really know....but trust must be restored before this district can move forward. Until that happens, nothing happens....

How does the lack of a sunset clause correlate to an ever increasing levy? The passage of a levy of x amount (let's just say $4 for a number) with no sunset clause, means they will collect $4 dollars indefinitely. I don't believe it can ever be increased above $4 dollars without a vote. The vote is for a levy of a specific value. When there is no sunset clause a time frame is simply not provided. A levy with a sunset clause just adds in the time frame.

I think people are misunderstanding the "sunset clause".

I believe it is the difference of "Shall the School Board collect $4 for operating" vs "Shall the School Board collect $4 for operating for 5 years". In both cases the levy is capped at $4. The levy could be decreased, if the assessments cause a roll back.

If someone really knows, correct me if I am wrong. Direct us to a valid, credible link that shows the information.

there is a minute adjustment clause which causes the levy to move up if the tax rolls fail to produce the projected income. i won't bother looking it up, but i recall someone finding it a while back when pops was chanting about the possibility of wholesale tax hikes at the whim of the BOE.

sorry, pops, but not only were you mistaken then, but you are apparently still convinced that there is a chance that the lack of a sunset clause would allow willy nilly raises in levy amounts. in fact, i think the same "fail safe" clause applies to any operating levy, so either way, sunset or permanent, you can see slight fluctuations in these tax instruments.

since you leave the door open to a permanent levy, and since NO FUNDING will be made available to the district in this election, i propose you use your vote responsibly and ask the district to reconsider the issue by voting NO in NOvember. there is no urgent need to seal the deal on this in november.

Nope...I will vote "YES" because I SAID I would...and because I still feel that a permanent levy, even with the possibility of a "minute adjustment" is wrong. I can see how "slight fluctuations" could be twisted and used to gain more income. Sorry, heritage, but this all comes to the trust issue I've been talking about. If I TRUSTED the district, I'd have little or no difficulty. I don't TRUST them to be responsible, and not to raise taxes "willy nilly" were they given the blank check I talked about. You may disagree....and that's OK. I think we view things differently, and you're not going to change my mind. As for my current vote, to me it's an integrity issue. I said I'd have voted "YES" before, had there been a sunset clause. To vote "NO", now that the sunset has been reinstated would make me a liar. Additionally, for the reasons I've stated many times, I still believe in the sunset clause. The ONLY way I'd ever support a permanent levy would be that the language of the levy strictly forbids ANY increase in the levy without a vote from the people. I wouldn't allow for "slight fluctuations" and "minute adjustments".

Throwing money and people at a problem has never been the smartest move.

Or is that what our leaders have been taught?

Pops, in your post Oct 19, 2009, 6:22 am, even though I am on the opposite side of the fence with this, very well thought out comment. I know a while back you have brought that very issue up before about the cap so they could not increase it without voter approval to be placed on the ballot. I remember I had looked into it and we got into a debate because I had stated state law covers that, but when I dug into it further there was an allowed variance for various situations which goes to your point. In my view, if I had a position on the BOE or administration and if putting something like on a ballot was key to getting public buy in to get what I really need for improvements and future state, i would most certainly be pushing for that kind of ballot language. What is it going to hurt? Anyway it is still a definite NO in November for me, but I thought you had a very good perspective on that element Pops.

Thank you, John Courter. I appreciate that. I realize maybe my view sounds just a bit paranoid, but you know....after the many years I've lived in this "democracy" of ours, I've noticed how our language gets twisted and used against us!! I agree with you totally. If the district wants this, don't hide behind a nebulous state law as being our "protector". Make the language plain and clear....and iron-clad. Be open and honest and transparent. The district leadership might be very surprised if they'd try honesty instead of being cagey!!

Actually, for any local, state or federal elected officials, you might sit up and take notice, too. Can anyone explain why a health care reform bill needs to be 1500 pages long? Why it has to be written in such legalese that no one can fully or truly understand it? It's to provide legal loopholes for future changes that don't have to clear the public. Beware when you put the lawyers in charge, folks!!