mr courter, the levy without the sunset clause was defeated overwhelmingly in april. the district needs to focus on getting this levy passed, and look down the road in a few years. right now is not the time to pass a forever tax.

JAFO, with due respect I disagree. The sunset is not what is needed, it was made very clear. I will not support a solution that has been deemed ineffective. This approach was severely critisized back in Apr along with high critisizm against the Reeder camp. All the validations are there to support my rationale. What is lacking is confidence to engage the public to get the buy in needed. I stand by my position and put my name to . I have not heard one real strong argument for the present direction, what I continually hear is if "I do not vote for this I am against the children" , that it is "not the right time" etc,. I do not buy it one bit. Sunset clause in my view hinders progression and also I believe hurts more than helps. We as a community are already behind the curve on many fronts in the educational process. I will not stand by without speaking out about this, we should be already progressing forward and engaging the public to get the buy in needed in all areas of town, not just select areas. This has gone on long enough within this community in regards to alienation of specific areas and it shows. The present state of our educational system shows as to the ineffectiveness of the sunset clause. We worry more about budgetary concerns than about progression and moving forward. We should already have this in place as well as another argument for bonds to build new buildings. In a nutshell, confidence is lacking to re-argue the case and make a strong committment to get the buy in needed. It is No in November, argue for what we need or we do not need at all. Sunset is temporary that is what it means, and those who try to spin that, with due respect I do not buy it. An argument for a temporary solution full well knowing this is not what is truly needed in my view validates it is not not really needed. It has been made very clear a permenant solution is needed, so fight for it and gain the buy in to get what is needed, now not five years from now. It is No in November. We need to work on progressing to future state, not several years from now. To the school district and groups who support this temporary levy, in my view you should have the confidence to fight for what you truly need. This is not the correct approach, we are in the 21st century and should pursue things as such. NP, thank you for publishing my editorial.

jafo, i don't know where you were in the previous election but "overwhelmingly" is not even remotely an accurate description of the NO/NO vote. the margin was , in fact, razor thin. the sunset was only one of a plethora of factors which narrowly defeated the levy/bond.

there is NO REASON for this levy to be on the ballot at this time. no funding will be made available to the district by passing this levy until november 2010.

NO in NOvember. fully fund our schools!

Nice letter John. The levy with the sunset clause does NOT address any immediate financial crisis or address long term concerns.

Our children and our community deserve better than this levy which ALL parties agree - including the district - is insufficient.

Voters who truly care about school improvement and community progress will vote NO in November and demand permanent and appropriate funding for our schools.

Joun,
Great letter and for the ones who think overwhelming failed because the sunset was not on there it was around 170 votes or so.I will not support this flawed levy.I also agreewith John we do not need a outside group to be involved wit hsomething we are suppose to have educated people on staff to work wit hthe community and get what right for our schools district.We will not vote for this levy in November.

Great letter Mr. Courter. I was one who supported with passion the previous two issues last time but will be voting no this time. I am for a long term plan that addresses long term needs and not just same as usual give them money that people will endlessly bicker over and be right back where we started a few years from now with the exact same issues.

Frankly I think many of you are shooting yourselves in the foot. The district made a decision -for better or worse- to place the issue on the ballot in November. The superintendent and board members that many of your champion felt this was the best course. I also hope you realize that the district must pay thousands of dollars to get this issue on the ballot, not to mention the campaign funds that have been spent thus far on advertising and other initiatives to get out the vote. Don't bite off your nose to spit your face. You'll have more energy to fight the sunset battle in five years.

Do you not think that voting yes is a fight for the future? We have to start somewhere. Apperently you have not researched from the last ballet. There was an overwelming vote for no because the citizens of this city could not handle the fact of this levy being permanent. Although education is permanent. Again you have to pay for what you want. You say you are not against the children. Well yes you are. As citizens of this city it is our duty to make sure our children are getting the appropriate education and not take a personal vendetta against the city. How do you progess and move forward? HAHA budget!!! All aspects of the schools are evaluated. Oh I guess your not aware that certain schools were given the option to be bused to other schools outside their district. Which by the way made it over crowded for the other schools. This city is fighting with everything it has to help these children get the education they need and it is people like you that want to stop any progessing that they are trying to do. Vote yes

peak, the district paid the 50k to put the levy on the ballot. the funding for the campaign is not coming from the district at all.

sj.... OVERWHELMING is not the word to describe a razor thin margin of under 200 votes. there is NOTHING but anecdotal "evidence" to make the case that the lack of a sunset was the cause of the loss. the district is having to bus children due to failing title one schools, and Chose to close two schools Knowing this AYP issue was a distinct possibility.... thus creating the overcrowding situation. lastly, the constant carping that those who seek a different road for permanent funding somehow don't care about the Children is one of the biggest turnoffs from the past campaign. now, they are back at it again.....

FACT: the district will NOT receive any funding for this levy until nov 2010. the biggest problem this vote has is incorrect information and emotional pleas to vote yes for the children. No in NOvember will give you and the community the time to get your FACTS straight.

Sjones: "Apperently you have not researched from the last ballet."

No, it appears YOU are the one who has not done any research. There was nothing OVERWHELMING about the last election.

And on this remark: "Oh I guess your not aware that certain schools were given the option to be bused to other schools outside their district."

WRONG again. Actually, many in this forum including H were reporting this in the forum before the NP did.

Might I suggest that before you make such remarks, you follow your own advise and do a little research.

The schools had to be closed. I sure don't want my children going to a school that has mold through out the building. Can't speak for you though. I guess bringing back some of the jobs that were lost do to the levy failing in April has no effect on you either. Never really heard anyone calling children a turn off before. Didn't realize your 30 dollars a YEAR was a turn off for the children and those that lost their jobs.

Sjones, check with the administration, but I believe that the district was able to place all current employees who wanted a job in a job the last I heard.

Even the CFO of the St. Joseph school district confesses it it "way to early to make actual decisions"- So why are the telling us all these 'horror' stories and trying to leave us with a 42 million dollar bill?

I want accountability...The school district has used our tax dollars for $110,000 in catering costs! Catering costs!! You're kidding me!

Our enrollment is down, which to me translates to less money needed. Our top administrators make more than a million dollars; 74% over other school districts but our teachers are still being paid less than the state average.
To me, it's clear where their priorities are.

I am all for our kids and by telling me I'm not, Sjones, you make me even more mad.

I will not vote for a new school district tax until I see some more accountability and less waste from our administrators.

sj, webster has NO problem, mold or otherwise. the district has made NO announcement that passing the levy would bring back jobs, in FACT the district closed the schools specifically to CUT JOBS and overhead. it was a budgetary decision, and not one which the district has any intention of reversing if this inadequate levy passes.

there is a lot of Valid Information out there, which you clearly have not availed yourself of. not a single point you have made is even remotely correct.

heritage_sarahhochschwender- You act like $50K is chump change. That happens to be about two starting teacher salaries.

Do you not realize that some states mandate sunset clauses and their districts deal with it just fine. IMO the sunset is a check and balance on the district to make sure they are fiscally responsible and retain the trust of tax payers. What you folks want is essentially a blank check.

Also for the record the levy defeat WAS NOT overwhelming (the bond issue was SOUNDLY defeated). However, to say that the lack of a sunset clause did not contribute is naive. That issue was essentially the crux of the campaign against the issue.

John - Great letter. The district must understand that the taxpayer is not going to hand them money for no better reason than we need it.
Early on in this discussion prior to the November vote the issues over the BOE not having a clear and concise plan acceptable to the community were repeatedly raised. Instead of adjusting their position so as to embrace what the community viewed as critical in this process the district forged forward with yet another flawed plan directed at doing nothing more than keeping the hoppers full.
The people of this community are simply not going to approve funding until the district understands and demonstrates that they can provide a long range plan designed toward improving educational excellence. Thus far the only thing seen is the same old rehashing of policies found insufficient and unacceptable.

peak, of course 50 k is not chump change, but i put it in context of the overall budget. if the district had not chosen to place this levy on a single issue ballot it would have been a shared expense, so if that is an issue for you i hope you are considering that decision carefully.

the district had many problems with the last vote. the economy, the decision to put the bond on the ballot, the administration's tactics, the badly run campaign, the decision to to even notify the voters of the removal of the sunset until the ballot language was already filed.......

since no exit polling was done no one will ever know what the real influence the sunset had in the NO/NO vote. i think that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. i believe that reeder had NO effect on the vote, but that is only my opinion, of course. simply because his group was making noise does not translate to evidence that they were influencing the results any more than the other issues i mentioned. add the transfers, the trust issues, the overcrowding and the ayp scores and i don't think the district has helped themselves one bit.

Apple, the district is not reaching out to the community, the TF is. The district is doing nothing.

Well, i spoke with someone i work with and she went to her child's parent-teacher conference this week. she has been disciplining her child for not bringing his science book home so she could help him with this subject. when she was at the parent teacher conference she found out that they don't have a book to bring home. now, earlier when this initially started i indicated that unless they could tell me why there were not enough school books, everyone said i don't believe that, there are other ways to teach, etc. well with a over a 30 million dollar reserve and not enough books for classes, why would i vote for anything other than the levy to sustain the school district? the teacher does have the info for the class on her blog or website or whatever, but not every home has a computer, so are those children just left out because the parent can't afford a computer to follow the lesson, and the school district doesn't have the money for books?

rxyrch, this is exactly why many have the perception that the BOE/Administration's priorities are skewed. It would seem to me that it would be logical to use those reserves to make sure every child had needed textbooks. Why isn't the district doing so? Some argue that it is to punish the children and the voters. Some say it is because they intend to use that reserve if the levy passes for building schools. Neither of these things can be proven, however, one thing is clear and that is that the district is currently making cuts that don't have to be made at this time. This type of behavior breeds distrust and resentment.

Plain and simple our vote is NO and will remain NO till things are done right.

the books issue stems from making new orders in the last year of a book's use, i think. especially in the case of technology, the district does not like to order new books to fill the needs of the classes if they realize that in the next year they will simply be purchasing new editions? fiscally it seems to make sense, but as a parent i would not be a happy camper!

"Get the funding back to the schools, does not mean you can't add to it when nessesary ........"

if you are "selling" a levy based on a sunset, it is completely disingenuous to use that mechanism to hoodwink voters into approving it with the thought that the FIVE years is going to be upheld. this is the Problem. more deception and more voters who will possibly vote yes BECAUSE OF THE SUNSET and will be even Less Trusting when the district "adds to it". those who justifiably will feel that they were tricked will have Looooong memories. as JAH said, this could take 15-20 years to overcome.

Honesty and openness is needed. it is not happening. this sunset is nothing but a ploy.

news flash. i heard that charlie sheilds just made a 5k donation to ocodof.

rxyrch, I don't know you, but you are correct. I went to P-T conference yesterday and my kid's class does not have science book either.

what is that? they haven't had enough books in the school since my daughter went to high school over 10 years ago, so how long are they going to wait?

Can NP check out which schools and which grades do not have textbooks? Does that apply to all schools equally? My kid has shared math book in the class, and that means they do not have enough math book for every student. I have a hard time to request my kid to take the math book home once so I can take a look what the requirements are. Taking math book home is a previlage not a right. For me, there is something wrong. Does SJSD really believe in qualify of education?

sara, what did he donate to?

the campaign to pass the levy....... our children,future, decision......

What is the obsession with books?! Kids learn differently in the 21st century. They actually DO science rather than read about it in a book. Social studies teachers actually have the kids solving problems using the Internet rather than memorizing names and dates (neither of which they will remember for more than 2 weeks).

As far as math goes, the teachers don't assign 80 problems for homework each night for kids and parents to argue about. They practice in class and do hands-on activities to develop deeper mathematical understandings.

As far as reading goes, yes, there seem to be more than enough books representing a wide variety of genres. Not everyone reading about Dick and Jane as we did.

Is that a surprise? Other Heartland employees have donated also.

Orliandor, maybe you and your kids are super smart, but we are just average Joes from midtown. Yes, we need textbooks. When I want to look at kid’s math book, it should be there for me to look at it. I shouldn’t be begging the teacher to let my kid to take the book home for just one night. Is that too much to ask?
While I noticed Gene Field parents were complaining in this forum that their kids got the books in a week or two after the school started, we midtown poor kids still don’t have the books. That is why I want NP to investigate this issue. I do not trust this SJSD treats every kid equally, you bet.

saturnlady - NP investigate? When pigs fly.

Orliandor,
You are wrong. Children ARE bringing home too many math problems each night for homework. And they ARE still expected to memorize dates and names. Students today are brining home more work than ever before. Teachers continue to send MORE and MORE work home each night but don't give the students/parents the resources (books) to be able to figure out how to do the work.

As for "doing science", I sat in a classroom two weeks ago and watched an entire class of 4th graders sit for 40 (yes, four-zero!) minutes watching a tablespoon of sugar dissolve in a cup of water. The poor kids were bored out of their minds and had no interest in it whatsoever after the first five minutes. It was a horrible waste of time. I would rather they read about it (IN A BOOK) for ten minutes or so and move on to something else.

Saturnlady call the state deptment of education they will help you get this issue solved because calling downtown is just a waste of time.And from what I have seen you are correct in your statement the district does not treat all of the students equal.But seriously call tyhe state and they will call the district and find out for you why your children still do not have any text books.

Re the reported $5,000 campaign donation from Charlie Shields, was that a personal contribution or from his campaign treasury? Since Charlie will not be seeking re-election due to term limits, I assume he has some leftover campaign funds which he can distribute in a variety of ways. As I understand it, this would be a legal contribution if, in fact, that is the source of the donation.

Sorry I want to be a vote yes and think it is terrible what we have done with the no vote last time around on just renewing the 63 cent one. But this community is not going to do anything, because that is our specialty, and if all we are doing is temporarily giving them back the money then all we do is just spin our wheels.

I want to see a long term plan in place that is part of the long term success and progress of this city. This has far less to do with the school board and district then it does with the people in this city needing to realize something different then same old thing and just treading water. If it takes people to see just how bad our schools are funded and outdated by making them get worse then so be it.

Tough love if people need to see it in a clearer manner. The greater good of getting something done that will be beneficial to this city and our communities in the long run.

To address some opposing views on my opinion, I believe sunset clause does not fund future state and I will not support it. There has been nothing in the campaign that mentions it is being implemented for improvements, the campaign is running on the "black cloud" and the "keeping the lights on" scenario which I do not buy one. That is not an argument for future state.
The money being spent for this campaign is irrelevant to me. I think the administration and BOE made a bad decision to go in this direction. I also believe the group doing all the work for this direction is also taking the wrong coure of action. And if there has to be alot of money raised for a campaign, that initself to me is already a problem. Sounds to me like there is a concern how this one will play out, hence the money to finance, instead of engaging, we throw money at it in attempt to buty the vote. That is what it is to me. Other states out there who demand sunset clauses for their school districts is also irrelevant. Those funding initiatives could be for projects instead of operational funds, etc, so that is a blanket statement without any clout to the infrastructure of how that is conducted. Maybe those states and municipalities within them have other options they utilize to appropriately fund for what they need to move into future state. The blank check philosphy I do not buy into either. If later on down the road, the community feels things are being mismanaged, then a petition can be brought into play to re-argue it. The blank check is not an argument. It can be rescinded if the right processes are followed. As to "making noise", I stand by my viewpoint. The validations are there to support my rationale. Defend the district and the group all you want and hammer at me for thinking I am on some agenda that does not exist or posting "away like crazy, my argument is sound and I have the confidence to put my name to my argument. Technology is moving by leaps and bounds, future jobs even plant jobs will reguire knowledge and expertise from employeess to manage that, animal sciences which St Jo has a heavy role in as well as food plants are heavily involved in technology utilization, we need to have our educational processess developed to prepare our children with these skills and we need to invest in that heavily and now, not 10, 20 years from now. It takes committment, an agressive approach, long term investment with capital to back it, public engagement, and even some risk. Sunset clause does not do that, it hinders, holds back, and creates a conservative environment to not invest, only to save and hoard. I will not vote for such an environment. I will support actual committments to future state, not status quo. If we stay with status quo, we do not need any additional funding in my view. Invest in the future and have the confidence to engage the public on that direction, or we do not need any additional funding. It is No in November.

What we have coming on the ballot in November is a compromise. It's a good one, too. It gives the district back the funding they say they need. It gives the district 5 years to mend fences with the community. It gives the community a chance to see the district is or is not trustworthy. It doesn't ADD a tax....it only reinstates what we've been paying all along.
After the 5 years, it's my heartfelt hope that the community sees transparency from the district leadership, and the district can see a community ready to fund the local school district permanently. Honesty and trust...two things badly needed in our town.
I'm voting "YES"....as a good-faith gesture to the district and my faith in the future. To vote "NO" only prolongs the acrimony.

What we have here is a "failure to communicate" on the part of the school district. The district has not communicated to its patrons since the previous tax levies and that is what is hurting them now. They put on a show at tax time, then seem to forget all about relating positively to the public and their own employees. There has been much discussion about the sunset but when you are faced with an election, you run what you think will pass. If you have not been active in the public domain, you have to shoot for a lower goal. This is what they are doing now. Legislators have town hall meetings. The city has meetings in different areas of town through the year. What does the school district do to relate to its public? If you say, come to the board meetings, how large is the room? Why not take the meeting to the public. That is what the legislators and the city do. I also think school board meetings could be televised regularly, in their entirety.

That is one thing I do admire about the city and legislators. The City Talk meetings is an excellent concept and it has increased engagement with municipality issues in several areas. They made an effort to take "the meeting to the public" and I believe it has had impact. I agree with you Dillygent1, if the school district utilized a similar philosphy, it could have impact.

Well it seems as if the TF may have some opposition that they were not expection.It seems as if the citizens against tax forever is sending out flyers in the community.
So here we go again now if this levy fails the district will have 2 groups to blame the TF and the citizens against forever tax.This has just gotten to darn messy and to think the district could have done all of this work and worked with the public and got the levy right with communnity support.Now it seems as if we are going to have 2 groups going at each other.Apple stated she got a flyer in the mail from citizens against forever tax group.She posted this in one of the articles about the albany school flu issue.

Not true apple I support my schools I do not support a levy that does not meet the financial needs of the schools andwill have to be addressed beofre the levy expired if the levy does indeed pass.I am not letting either of these groups tell me what to do I am doing what I feel is right for our schools and neither one of these groups have the right idea as far as I am concerned.
Also apple Reeder said he would not oppose the levy and the TF but the group that heads the citizen against forever tax did not say they would not oppose the TF or the levy.Not defending Reeder but he is just the treasurer and I think they just take care of the money.Must be someone else behind this if indeed you did get a flyer in the mail from them.

Apple,I cannot speak for either one of these people but what I can tell you Heritage is not against our community or our schools.She just like you have the best interest at heart for our schools and we all have a different vision and idea how are schools should be funded thats it.Sure some are against taxes and this group happens to be one that is.

Apple but you know the TF has heartland support behind them and they do not do anything for nothing.I have said before heartland is shady and they have tried to corner the market on health care in our area. Also several years ago they where involved in a suit that involved the antitrust laws of our country look it up it is still on the internet.I do not trust these people as well.So it is a half dozen of one and a half dozen of the other.This exactly why the board and administration should have been doing their own work and campaigning for this levy and working with the community for their support.Like I said now we are going to have these groups going at each other it seems.

The flyer is irrevelant to my rationale for voting No. It is no different then the flyer I got in the mail today from the OCOFOD group. Both flyers in my view are not sending the correct message. The one I got from the group was to me very condenscending and had vocabulary in it that was not defined, only inflated to promote the cause. The flyer validates the point yougottobekiddingme has made several times, this direction only re-enforcese status quo solutions and in effect makes the sunset clause the standard so 5 years from now when someone makes the decision to argue for a permenant levy it will be a much harder sell. It is deceptive vocabulary in my view. I stand by my argument. Argue for what is truly needed to progress into future state, or we do not need any additional funding at all if all we are going to do is maintain status quo. It is No in November.

Apple,
The end may be near for a few board member and Superintendent Smith and a few other administrators but we will getthrough this and pass a levy which is right and meets the financial needs of the school and we will move forward.Nut I think this levy in a few days right now it is on a sinking ship and will not pass.I seen in it your call today some people are calling for the board to step aside.It is going to be very messy and it is starting all over again.The board and admin should have done some work to engage the community themselves and chose not to now it probably is going to bit them in the butt.But they have till August of next year to pass a levy and would get the revenue at the same time as if this levy in Nov would pass so they have quiter a few months to work for whats right.

Apple there is no way they can close any further schools in our community they have nowhere for any more students to go.They have already created that mess and have no answer to clean it up and then they got bit in the butt with the NCLB sanctions on top of it.So see there are people including myself that see how Smit hvision for our schools is working out and she in not doing very well.And guess what our children are suffering because of her actions and hers alone.Schools could have remained open and operated till a levy and bond would have passed with the community's involvement and support but they chose to go the way they did and now have pissed parents to contend with as well.And since they have not wanted to answer the parent questions on the issue now about what all of this redistricting and school closures have created mostly overcrowding people will speak at the ballot box. Like I said bad weather or not if people need to go vote I would more then gladly give them a ride to the poll.Like I said it is going to get messy in the next few days and the mud slinging will begin.I support funding for our school but not a levy that is not the right amount and does not address the long term finacial needs of our school.Plus not to mention the fact the district themselves have said this will still out them in distress beforeit expires in 5 years meaning they will have to come back to the voters and ask for more before the 5 years are over and that would be a hugh mess in itself.How many times does our district want to fight this issue?Do it right the first time and get off of their butts and engage the community themselves andwork together for what is best for the community schools and kick these outside groups out and lets solve our issues with the school.Apple 2 new board member will help the issue ones with open minds and willingness to work with the community something we do not have now.

The OCOF mailers are factually incorrect because they indicate that this is a "renewal" of the levy, which it is not since they 63 cent levy will go bye-bye in 2010 regardless of how this election turns out.

One more example of treating the voters like they are stupid.

My argument is solid, I have the rationale and validations to back it as well as experience, and I stand by what I have to say with my name to it, something you cannot do with yours. My vote is No. The present direction does not improve or support future state. I have not seen a flyer or heard what position the other group has taken on this. And with due respect Apple, I will not buy into your interpetation of it until I see it for myself. Until I see for myself or hear from them, I will stay open minded. If they have taken a position against a tax increase because it is inline with my argument and the argument is for future state, then yes I will support them. If they have taken another position on this,so be it, and even though I may not agree with that position, My vote is still no because the present direction is the wrong one. The position the OCOFOD has taken is in my view the position the Reeder camp took the first time around, so they caved to that in my view. Yougotobekiddingme is absolutely correct, the flyers have"incorrect" information. It is No in November. Argue for future state or do not argue for it all.

Is it possible to have respectful dialogue? To disagree without being disagreeable? Referring to people as idiots, snakes and liars only demonstrates the writer's vitriol and does nothing to encourage legitimate discussion. It would help if all would pursue their passion with decency.

Falcon, excellent comment and I completely agree.

Falcon,
Do not take me wrong but the district admin and board hads let this go ne like iit has and has had really co constructive dialog with the itizens of this community since the levy Failed in April and the bond issue also failed.They could have come out and started to communicate and work with the public months ago and they chose not to but rather to turn it over to a outside group and they as well have not been transparent with the community and commuicated very well.All I wouls ask for as well as alot of the parents I talk to is some answers from the superintendent and her staff as to what is going ot be done about the mess they have created in our schools and such.It is going to be awhile for the community to stand behind this admin and board if it ever does again.So this is going to hurt our schools,children,teacher and programs in our schools.But the people downtown need to make the first move toward working with the communityafter all these people are paid by us and work for us and ultimatly answer to us.You know one time they say onething andf the next time it is something totally different on the same subject so what do they expect out of the community?But it is time for these people to get off of their high horses and come out into the public and start to do their jobs they are paid to do and quite ruining our school district. This is some of the main reasons this levey will not pass.

Folks, the "present direction" is we have zero levy...NONE! It's going to STAY that way until trust is regained. That won't happen without the sunset clause. Apple and I have hotly disagreed about the sunset clause, but I think we DO agree that the BEST, and most responsible, thing to do NOW is get the levy reinstated. Sure, it's going to take awhile to get the money flowing again, but better late than never...right? It'll be a long, LONG time before another levy is proposed, and even LONGER if it's proposed without a sunset clause.
Face it, my friends, it's either a levy WITH a sunset clause, or nothing.

Apple, with due respect, I think your last statement is very mean and retalitory. Pops, disagree with your argument and it is still No for me, but you put a consistent rationale to it and stay with the debate, that I respect.

pops, i continue to wonder why you so devoutly believe that it will be a LONG time before another levy will be proposed if this effort fails. that opinion is neither backed by the history of passing initiatives in this area, nor by the discussions i have personally witnessed in attending many BOE meetings.

what do you base this assumption upon?

IF this levy fails.....then it's a two-time loser. It lost WITHOUT the sunset clause, and if it loses, it will have lost WITH the sunset clause. I think any sane, rational person would agree that if that happens, the public will NOT be in ANY mood, considering the current state of affairs in our school district, to see it appear....AGAIN....in the next election. At some point, it's my belief that the people will feel as though the district is attempting to push the levy down our throats by simple repetition. I think you have a community on the edge of saying "ENOUGH"!!!
Heritage, I respect all you who oppose this, but many of us who voted "NO" last time did so because of the sunset clause, and because we felt that was the only way to keep some reins on a school district we don't trust. The sunset clause was a mechanism that many of us feel gives us some form of "check and balance". Some of you may disagree and that's OK. However, you and I SHOULD be able to agree that the district NEEDS this levy to be passed. It will NOT pass without a sunset clause. That much is clear. To defeat it WITH a sunset clause, in my opinion, is the last straw. To try to go to the public AFTER a second defeat will be like tossing gasoline on a fire.
I still say, let's pass this one, let the trust between the district leadership and the public build for 5 years, and then let's revisit the levy without a sunset clause. Perhaps one, as I've advocated, with specific language that would prevent any possible levy increase without voter approval. In fact, I'd support a permanent levy NOW if that were in place.

We need a levy that actually addresses the long term financial needs of the schools for that exact reason for they do not keep coming back and back and back all the time saying they need more when they know already this is not going to be enogh for the next five years.With all due respect pops if this levy passes the adminiistrators will not work with the puvblic to gain it trust or work with the community on anything and at the end of 5 years or when they come back and ask for a bond to biuld new schools it will also at that time be like throwing gasoline on a fire.

If you're right, John, at the end of the 5 years, the district will lose the levy entirely, and won't get it back. I'm at least proposing giving the district that chance. If you're right, it's the best yet argument to NOT give them a permanent levy.

Pops, if we wait five years until the levy is up, it will be too late. The district will be out of money. This levy isn't enough to sustain the district for the next five years even factoring in spending the reserves, which they will be forced to do with or without the levy. That is but one reason that is a dumb idea to ask the voters for this. The district knows and the TF knows this is not enough.