I am glad to see that our city elected officials have a letter here but they fail to see as well the levy for what it is a flawed levy that does not address the financial needs of the schools.So many people with blinders on and they say they want better for our children.If you all really want better for our children then fight for what is right for our schools,children and teachers.This levy will put us in financial distress before it expired.This must start with communication within the entire community and has not happened.
I guess when I am voting for Mayor I will remember this Mr Flakner I was going to support you and your support for a flawed levy as well as our districts council member.
This goes to show that these folks like the status quo in my opinion.

mm1967,
While I understand you are passionate about a levy with no sunset clause, that is out of the question. What you HAVE is a sunset clause....like it or not. The levy WITHOUT the sunset clause already failed. It will NOT pass. To vote NO at this point will remove any hope for a levy anytime soon. To vote NO at this time will only delay the positive progress you insist you want. To vote NO at this time doesn't help the district in any way.
I have problems with the district leadership....I've made that clear. I do NOT have a problem with funding the district in this way. I DO have a problem handing the current leadership a blank check with no way to repeal it in the future. A 5 year sunset clause allows the district and the community to mend fences and build trust. THEN we can return to the topic of a permanent levy. There is zero chance a permanent levy will pass now....and if this one fails, you'll have NO levy at ALL, for the foreseeable future.

So some of the YES/YES voter then just became NO voters.I could supoport it with a sunset if it was more then 63 cent and would actually address the issues in our schools.But this way our children will still lose services and they will be back in 2 years to ask for more and I do not want to to go through this again.
Each one of are entitled to our opinons and we voted YES/YES the last tiem and will be voting NO next Tuesday.

The thing is, mm1967, the district obviously didn't need the 63 cents with which to operate, since they used a good portion of the past levy to build their reserves. I think 63 cents is a good place to start. In 5 years, it could become permanent, and maybe raise a bit....

Pops, in five years, the district will be in financial ruins. 63 cents does NOT - I repeat DOES NOT even get the district through the next five years. This is why it doesn't make sense.

Pop with respect to your opinion I will not vote for this levy.It is not the right way to go for our schools and also the district as far as I am concerned has a lot of explaining to do to the parents of elementary students for their actions.
I also have more questions after seeing Mrs Smit hon tv last night.
Wit hthe 63 cent levy they were going to keep the schools open till 2001 and with out they closed them so if they get this levy back it would seem to me they could open them back up then and solve alot of their mess they have created for family's.
But see this could have remained open and rhey could have worked to get the levy back and then engaged the community for the long term plan of the schools.This would have also saved them this money that they will have wasted after Tuesday to put it back on the ballot.Look at the poll on stjoechannle.com for this levy ast the percentages and then go back and look at the poll on the levy and bond in April on their site.The levy failed as well as the bond and their poll results were that as well and the percentages fell right in line with the out come in April.The current poll shows it failing miserably.75% people who took the pol were voting NO so if this tuesdays election fall in line again with their poll it is going to fail by a landslide.Why do you think the TF at this point is mudd slinging as well?They are running scared.Just my thoughts on the issue.NO IN NOVEMBER

Correction I meant they were going to keep schools open till 2011 not 2001.

Repeatedly we see individuals and now public figures stepping forward in favor of the upcoming school levy. Not seen from all those supporting this measure is a better explanation on how the BOE will utilize these revenues toward improving the educational excellence of the district.

No one appears to oppose funding for the school district. At issue are the policies and direction of a district that has fallen short in demonstrating a continued advancement toward improving the districts primary purpose of educating, while also being out of synchronization with the desires of a significant portion of the community.

Money alone like the good intentions of many people will not be sufficient in curing the problems faced by the SJSD. If that were the case much greater progress would have been seen during the previous years when revenues were not an obstruction.

If the electorate passes the current levy proposal they are doing nothing more than embracing shortcomings of the district during the past several years and giving the message that "business as usual" is acceptable. Prior to approving additional funding and for meaningful change to take place the people of this community must require the BOE to come forth with a comprehensive plan outlining how and where funds will be utilized to elevate the educational system to a level deserved, and also state how the numerous other issues troubling the community will be addressed.

no apm - it will be funding as usual -

Don't count on it!

nice retort -

yougottabekiddingme,
The alternative is ZERO funding. I never got an accounting degree, but it just seems to me 63 cents is better than zero cents.
I'd still ask you to PROVE that 63 cents is inadequate in the upcoming 5 years when the district has PROVEN they didn't need that much in the PAST 5 years.
Folks, you can either vote "Yes" and at least have 63 cents for funding, or you can vote "No" and have zilch.

It comes down to choice.....

I might ALSO point out that had the community voted for the permanent levy in April, the district would have 63 cents.....permanently....

Unless, of course, the idea, then, was to start raising the levy amount periodically without voter approval....which is EXACTLY what I've been saying would have happened.

APM, excellent post and it goes right to the core issues why my vote will be No in November. The money is not committed to any progression for the future. If this passes, it will just lock in place a process that has been proven not to work and was literally "trashed" back in Apr. That is something that has been forgotten is how the sunset clause was severely critisized as not being an effective means of managing business within the school district. I will not support anything that is progressive. If No means zero cents, then so be it, in my view it will keep the door open to bring this back to the table with the correct argument and the appropriate amounts. I stated in my editorial how the school board and administration can get the public support needed for what the district states it truly needs. I do not buy into on bit it is either the "sunset or zero cents" thought process. The public in my view will be receptive to the true needs of the district when real committment is made to improvements, future state, and a plan in place to address the status and upkeep of all buildings in all areas. As to the editorials, real interesting how our political leaders only now sign off on a status quo solution that has been validated as ineffective but could not sign off on a more aggressive approach back in Apr. Validates in my view why the city as a whole is where it is in this day and age. We need to invest in future state and progression into the 21st century and stay competitive with the other cities or we will continue to fall behind. Sunset clause is not a progressive thought process. No in November and argue it correctly or we do not need it at all.

Again know who you are dealing with - here is a link to the web page of the President of the American Majoriy blog space

http://www.americanmajority.org/component/search/public%2Bschools/%252F?ordering=&searchphrase=all

Notice the blogs and what they have in common. Pushing private schools over public. Charter schools, school tax credits. This group is behind Tea parties and activating citizens to run for office. They are the ones throwing $35,000 into Axuim to print these lies.

Look at the local opposition, see how they obey the American Majority new media training by using these posts and blogs to spread their agenda.

They attack anyone who speaks up for the school, they even tell the coach of Central who will be retiring this year he is only concerned with his salary.

These people will stop at nothing and for what? Simply returning funding to our local schools. For not wanting our district to be the lowest funded schools in the state. For putting as much value on kids today as those in school a year ago.

This has nothing to do with community engagemnt, district communication, it is pushing a national agenda into our community and our community will suffer.

St. Joe, Kansas City fought them and won, Platte City fought them and won, they don't care the issue or the reasons or what happens after, don't beleive research them, read the blogs.

Even if you agree with them, you can't keep money from your schools. If you don't stand up for your kids St. Joe, who will -

I stand by my rationale behind my decision, have nothing to do with the opposition group, and I put my name to it. Sunset clause thought processes were "trashed" back in Apr and many of the same people now supporting this direction literally blasted that process back then. In my view, we should have the confidence to stand by what is truly need and argue for it. Sunset clause is not the correct approach and I will not support it. If there is an effort to "call out" that everyone who opposes this is supporting Axiom's rationale, then validate it. I beleive the public is able to make independent decisions and will vote based on their own decisions, not on the agendas of any group. The flyers from either group in my view are a waste of time and money, neither sends the correct messages. I encourage the public to get out there and vote for what you truly believe in. I have stated my rationale and that is what I will vote on. My vote is not a vote to keep money from schools, it is a vote on my rationale that this is not good enough and it needs to go back to the table with the correct and proper argument and the district administration and BOE should own it, campaign for what is truly needed, and engage the community to get the buy in for it, no any group. Both groups in my view have compromised their causes.

Pops, call the SB and ask to see their projections with the 63 cent levy for 5 years. You can see with your own eyes.

John – I appreciate your position and in theory I agree with your assessment of the sunset clause. Now, in business you have those that deal in theory and those that deal in reality, I happen to be one that deals in reality. The reality is this community will not vote for $1.08 with no sunset clause and there is not one person I have met that has the ability or is willing to bring our community together in the next 24 months to get this type of levy passed. The fact is by the time we get the community to rally behind a sensible plan the financial horse will have left the barn. $.63 with a sunset clause is a stop gap measure but a necessary stop gap.

well posted Boz and well said.

Boz44 this community is not going to vote for anything if you cannot see it till the people in charge are trusted.What other reason was Mrs Smith on TV last night for she knows it at this point.She knows they are going to have to engage the community and earn the trust back before this community supports anything they put before the voters.1.08 I would vote for it with a sunset and then work for the long term but the 63 cent does nothing for the schools,district as a whole and they have admitted it will still put the district in financial distress so why would they want to fight this fight again in a couple of years make no darn sence.
Another problem to many darn personal agendas involved in this whole school situation.
Read some of the post when people do come on here that do not post they are telling you the same thing they will not vote for any levy because of what the district did after the last levy failed.They have put it in black and white today in post.This levy is going to fail by a landslide if the poll on stjoechannel.com is any indication.

How did you come up with the 1.08 number - because someone came up with it for you, you couldn't give a number last night. Polly want a cracker? So I have this straight, you would put a 1.08 sunset and then work for a larger levy as part of the long range plan? wow -

Your really wraped up in that poll which has had only 531 vote, I would accuse of calling all your friends to vote no on that, but the number is about 530 to many for that to have happened

I'm just curious where the mayor and council members were last time? The "10 reasons" we need a strong public education system aren't recent revelations to them are they?

i am asshamed to be a product of this school system! glad my kids are not!

pops, voting no does not mean the schools will have zero funding, they have other sources of funding including other property taxes that aren't attached to this levy.

apple/sense, your getting boring.

MM - $.63 does give the school $7 million in revenue they would not have without it. $.63 allows for contracts to be offered to teachers with acceptable wage increases. $.63 allows new teacher pay to progress. $.63 does all of these things.

Changing the admin has nothing to do with the levy. If you want changes at that level you must vote board members in that will fight for those changes. The defeat of the levy will only make it harder to get another levy passed in the future because people will look and say "Gee, looky here, out schools seem to be doing just fine without the levy, I guess they can go just a little longer"

interesting that former teacher and deputy mayor donna jean boyer did not sign this?

Boz - Join sense and vote for the levy if you think it is the right thing to do.
If it does pass, be sure to assess where the district is in the next 2 to 4 years. You will then see what the full implication of your vote meant when the district is in the same dilemma that now exists; a budget surplus, standards continuing to fall short, a community remaining fragmented over decisions on expansion, and money provided for no better purpose than to support the inaction of bad choices.

You claim to deal in "reality". The true reality is that decisions by the BOE have not served the educational process of the community to the fullest extent possible. If change is not demanded now, this situation is not going to improve and most likely will deteriorate further.

So yougotta, what percentage of the levy and property tax amounts to the overall revenue of the school system

By the way the President of the American Majority comes from Larwence Kansas, I watched a youtube video of his speech he talks about revolution - these guys are scary

Apm – your argument about the district and their decisions is valid, however, why do you think removing funding is the way to counteract the problem? Does it not make more sense to work to place people on the board so the lasting changes you are looking for will take place? Removing funding does nothing to help make these changes. You want Dr. Smith to be fired? Great, who will you get to take her place to operate a school system in a community that will not fund the schools and for a salary that is 30% below market?

heritage - what is as interesting is that the NP did not allow the Task Force to sign their letter in the paper with each member's name but said policy is only one person could sign.

Boz, I found that interesting as well. Seems like a double standard at play OR perhaps the TF didn't want to publish the names of the members. There used to be a post somewhere on this site listing all the names, but it seems to have disappeared. Someone point it out if I am wrong.

Apple/sense: "what percentage of the levy and property tax amounts to the overall revenue of the school system"

No idea, sounds like a good project to keep you busy over the weekend. Why don't you work on it and report back to us?

I was just wondering since you say they get other revenue from other sources, it would be nice if you would tell us exactly what those sources are, how much of a percentage they make up of the revenue and where it come from. Then again, details are something we don't get that much from you.

http://www.stjoenews.net/news/2009/jun/19/levy-may-find-its-way-back-ballot/

the list is here.

boz, my information is that the NP considered a list of the length of the task force was too long and was deemed an advert.

the easy solution for that would have been to simply take out a quarter page ad. for a group which kept chanting they would have the funding over and over i found it odd that they chose not to do that. ..... but the TF was NOT nearly unanimously united behind the issue. names were substituted to bring that number up.......

Boz - Individuals become entrenched in positions such as these and unfortunately the current structure is not going to allow for the sweeping changes this district needs.
Voting down the current levy does not mean cutting off funding for ever. What it will do is put the BOE on notice that their handling of affairs must change.
I have previously stated that it was bad judgement to place this levy on the November ballot without first addressing in precise language how and what would change in the district to resolve the issues earlier mentioned. Should the levy again fail the board should acknowledge this as a vote of "no confidence" and either get serious on resolving these matters through real community involvement and consensus or step-down so those willing to do so can take charge.
This might be viewed as too harsh but if the community means business on wanting to see change and improvement the message must be clear. When that message is no additional money until we see such an approach there will be no misunderstanding over what must happen.

in a recent article:The St. Joseph School District currently has more than $32.8 million in its reserve fund. School officials have said in earlier reports that an independent auditor described the reserve fund as “healthy, not wealthy.” And that amount would sustain the district for about 90 days.

The 63 cents makes up about 5 percent or roughly $6 million of the total school district operating budget of about $110 million, Ms. Pullen said. That figure doesn’t include $5 million the district will receive over the two years from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That money is earmarked for improving services for the district’s economically disadvantaged and special-needs students.

Five percent doesn’t seem like a big chunk of the total budget, but it translates into a loss of services, according to Ms. Pullen.

“We don’t have 5 percent of things we are doing that are not worthwhile or that are wasteful,” she said. “We have to cut programs or people or something; really I can’t conjecture as to what those exact things would be.”

Pat Conway said school district residents will see about a 12-percent reduction on their tax bills this November.

__________________________________________________________

as anyone can see, ms pullen does appear to mis-state the true nature of the budget problem when she asserts here that the district would be sustained for only 90 days with the 32+million reserve. the district is not going to be without Any funding if this measure fails. they will have a 5% reduction of their yearly budget.

One issue I have not heard anyone talk about is what inflation will do to an operating budget that has been cut 5%. Inflationary pressures are starting to show within raw material costs in the manufacturing world and a trusted advisor indicates with the recent spending they would predict 8-10% inflation starting in Q3-10. I think this may be a little high but we should all be thinking about how quickly reserves will go if inflation is coupled with reduced operating revenue.

Sarah has her numbers right.
There is MORE.
The 63 cent part of the $3.70 levy is 17% of the total local levy.
The rest of the funding comes from state and federal sources.
REMEMBER during the last 4 years 2/3rds of the levy money went into the RESERVE FUND.
This district can operate for a while without cuts or the levy increase.

The board should have guaranteed increases for staff not admin, more money for programs that children need, and smaller classrooms--not necessarily in that order.

Without guarantees, what do we have?

I have noticed that many pro levy signs are at homes and businesses of school staff and members of the Chamber of Commerce.

I toured part of the south side: 3 on 22nd St south of Garfield, a few on Court Street, none on Alabama, only 1 on Hyde Valley near Hosea, and only 1 on Mason Road.

The only large grouping was along Meadow View in Glynn Oaks.

So, do you suppose that the district is hoping that the northeast, business people, and employees turn out and everyone else stays home? Is the KQ survey right?

peoplerule,
I believe they will see the largest turn out for a election that Buchanan County has seen in years.
To the KQTV poll if you look back to the poll that was taken before the bond and levy issue in april as it asked the same question it fell right in line with the outcome of the election in April.So I would have to say the last time I seen the results it was like 76% voting No and 14% voting yes and something like 1.7% saying they were not going to vote and the rest said they could not vote here because they did not live here.So the numbers on the poll says there will be a hugh turn out because the number of people that said they will not vote is low and the amount of people that took the poll that said they would vote No was pretty high.I personally think the levy will fail by a large percentage.The Tf (OCOFOD)group can do all of the talking in the world as well the citizens group can but the reason this is going to fail is because of the districts actions or lack of.These are my beliefs and opinion.Now also throw in the weather is not going to bad as I am sure the TF would like it to be to keep people away is not going to happen people are going to vote in large numbers.Only time will tell.

apm staes -"No one appears to oppose funding for the school district. At issue are the policies and direction of a district that has fallen short in demonstrating a continued advancement toward improving the districts primary purpose of educating"

Wrong apm.

1. It is obvious that several voters oppose funding for the school district.

2. If one objects to the policies and direction of the school district, one should take it up with or vote out the members of the Board of Education.

3. If one wishes to harm this community, one should vote to keep the St. Joseph School District one of the most under-funded in the state.

It isn't as complicated as some make it seem.

Orliandor,
This proposed levy does not fund the schools so why are they pushing so hard for a underfunded levy?Is it maybe because the TF thinkit is impossible to get the SJSD/SJSB to work with the community to gain its trust back and to work with the community on a levy that would support our schools.Must be the above mentioned because some of them do not blieve this is the way to go. Looks like if the stjoechannel.com poll means anything this levy is going to fail.

What a ridiculous statement. If the levy does not "fund" the schools, what exactly do you think it "funds"?

It fund them right.The district themsleves have said they would with this levy that is proposed still be in financial distress before it expired.This was said by Mrs pullen in one of the post.So no this levy does not fund the schools properly.

As far as stjoechannel.com-- I believe that is a web version of the local tv station. "Hee Haw" (a show of the past) has more credibility.

"It fund them right"? Please speak English.

Look at the past poll they had before the april election it also showed both levy and bond would fail and the percentages fell right in line with the out come of the April elections and they both failed.And this poll it is failing badly and if it falls in line with the poll they had the last time we will be back to square on Wednesday morning.
I think they wasted alot of money to put this back on the ballot so soon.Another 50,000 tax payer dollars wasted.

Oh now you are the grammer police.When the truth hurts about the levy this is what you revert to.I am such as bad person for forgetting to put my (s) on fund.SO sorry grammer officer.

Not the grammar police...I am just having difficulty understanding your position when you don't use standard standard grammar rules when you post here.

More importantly, I am not sure what you mean when you state that the levy money will not fund the schools. ("This proposed levy does not fund the schools") Where do you think the money will go?

My opinion is it under funds our schools for the long term and I personally do not want to fight this same issue every few years.It will not improve the education our children are getting.It will not bring back programs or services that were cut that did help with our community's children.But by the looks it really does not matter the public is not going to pass this for outher issue and they are the actions of the SJSD/SJSB toward the community since the April issues failed.Wounds are not healed and even though it may not be right people are voting no to send the Board and admin a clear message.

****we will exercise one of the greatest gifts our nation affords us: allowing our voices to be heard.***

Only if it is the right voice, so save the sappy "American way" way crap.Voices were heard last April and now they need to be heard again because they didn't say the right thing? And if they don't say the right thing this time..then what? Have another vote and encourage people to get out and have thier voices heard...AGAIN????

Your like a friend I used to play pool with, whenever he lost he wanted to go double or nothing..if he lost again..double or nothing..until he won. Only you accuse people of not wanting a good education or care about kids. Thow the guilt trip on them, that will sway them the way you want them.

Copy and paste this and put it in a time capsule and open it in 5 years. This is what they want, and this is what is going to happen. Older schools will be continue to be closed, they will built an addition on to an old school for your kids, and a brand spanking new one will be built in the east. Because the demographics of the city is clearly moving east (a quote from Alonzo Weston before the last vote). And guess what? You will pay for it.

Correction you are wrong all voices have not been heard.But since they were not heard I believe they will be heard Tuesday night loud and clear.It's called a little thing a right to vote.

I disagree with the thought processes this community would never buy into a permenant long term solution to support the school district. I have complete confidence the community as a whole would buy into a plan that addresses the future state and imoprovements of all areas of the community in educational processes, every present school building, and the construction of new schools. Sunset clause does not address those issues and we have what we have at present as a result. In my opinion, the sunset clause approach is the root cause of all major issues and problems affecting the district and the validations are there to support. Sunset clause creates a very conservative approach to doing business because of unstability and it shows. Instead of investing for improvement and progression, the thought process is do the miminum to maintain and put financial resources to a reserve because of the unstability of future funding. Then more effort goes back to a new argument to continue the funding, taking away efforts that should go into improvement and progression. If the arguement is going to continually come up, then in my view that process needs to end and every effort should be made to argue for the permenant correct amount and find ways to engage the public to get the buy in. There are plenty of opportunities to figure that out and they should be pursued. Instead, the thought process appears to be divide and separate based on statistical numbers and that is not good philsophy. The inflation element is not an argument for increased funding in my view. All organizations face the prospect of adjusting without more funding however that is accomplished depending on whether it is a public entity, non-profit, or a for-profit. Gas is going back up, pay checks are not, so many people have to adjust to accomodate within what they recieve. No different for organizations. As to finding people who could lead such efforts, new elections come up soon with the opportunity to vote in people who appear to have solid foundations to promote long term progression and aggressively move on thier visions to get out there and gain buy in from the public to support them. I meet people all the time as well, and the feedback I recieve is different. Invest and argue for future state that is what the argument should be for. That is not a theory, there are many businesses, public entities and organizations out there doing just that. I am working on one such project myself. There needs to be investing for the future to grow and progress. Sunset does not achieve that. Appreciate your positions also Boz44, I disagree with some of them, but they are well thought out posts that generate good debate. APM, nice posts also.

Wow. That is a whole bunch of words. The simple fact is that you can support your community or not. I hope you will vote to move this community forward.

I will support a long term solution that addresses future state. When that argument comes to play, I will vote for it. Sunset clause is not that argument. So there it is, in shortened form with my name to it. No in November.

Orliandor - Yes the conclusion from those like Mr. Courter and myself are absolutely correct.
There will always be a few opposing any taxing be it for education or otherwise and those numbers are in the minority. What you refuse to accept is the fact of how the BOE is accomplishing nothing but sustaining a program that is not making the improvements needed or desired by the community.
I have told others and will reiterate to you; go ahead and vote for the levy and perpetuate problem. When you are facing all the same issues in the next couple of years, should the levy pass, do not be surprised and do not blame those wanting to see things changed.
The current approach by the district is flawed and this is being recognized by the people in ever more increasing numbers.

I don't beleive you are absolutly correct as you put it. The group opposing taxes is unlike what we have seen before. All I hear from you and John is we need a long range plan - that will take time that we don't have. Our schools are funded the lowest in the state, what is the harm of getting proper funding to them.

With all the focus on them, not one audit, not one review has shown any misuse or unproper spending by our school district.

What I don't understand is where you believe the district is failing to make improvements needed or desired by the community? I have yet to hear exactly what anyone believes the community wants besides not paying for education.

sense - You keep saying the same things about the BOE of education not doing anything wrong and that is not the issue. While there are some specific points that could be argued over the use of funds the real debate centers around what the board should be accomplishing.
They have not formulated a plan satisfactory to the community that addresses expansion, districting, teacher compensation/progression, concern over lagging performance, and the ability to attract additional talent.
Additional funding becomes part of the solution when it is going to achieve the goal of an improved system for the city and right now the board has not demonstrated it is even close to having such a plan.

yougottabekiddingme,
You say 63 cents won't help the district....

How 'bout ZERO cents...because if this one doesn't pass....that is EXACTLY what you'll have.

Once again...I'm no economics expert, but it seems to me that less than you want is preferable to nothing....

Your correct about that pops, the district did come up with a plan apm - they got setback mostly by bad timing and the economy. Most communities don't win bond approval until two to three tries, this was our first.

I never claimed them to be perfect, however I cannot see how keeping our schools the lowest funded in the state and even below Avenue City district helps us in any fashion.

The conversation you want is one the district wishes to have and have given the community a promise that if they restore funding they put a five year sunset, or promise to have that conversation. That sounds logical to me.

Disagree with that thought process. If it becomes "zero cents" maybe that will resonate the fact that not everyone was for a sunset clause when they voted no the last time and if there is a true need for the levy, then "zero cents" will be incentive for a new approach to develop that will be a long range solution addressing all core issues. And then maybe the administration and BOe will own the argument and engage the public to promote it. The majority base who is now promoting this cause made it very clear in Apr the sunset clause was not the way to do business. I supported that effort, I will not support this one. It is a completely different argument based on a "desperation" thought process that does not exist. And in my view "zero cents" is not entirely an accurate view, the district still is receiving alot of income from various other resources. Every citizen has the right to vote and speak out on this issue. I do not agree with the present "it is this way or the highway" approach and if there is any credence to a previous comment Mr. Hickman made about a discussion the OCODOF had about "ramming this down the public throats" and the "public does not what is best" and I believe Mr. Hickman's comment to be valid, then the OCODOF is operating on that thought process. I will not support that type of mindset at all. pr No in November is my stand and I have the validations to support it.

Promises, promises, promises; sorry but that is not what is needed in this case.

pops - The district will not be zero'd out on their funding. It is just that they will be put in a position of understanding further funding is dependent upon earnestly working with and toward what the community wants accomplished.

And for the record, I have made numerous suggestions and reccomendations on how to proceed with sound rationale behind them. If it fails, instead of those being for the most part ignored, maybe some will actually take time out to read what I actually stated. The end of Tuesday will be the validation whether the majority of the public agreed or disagreed with the present direction.

"further funding is dependent upon earnestly working with and towrard what the community wants accomplished"

in other workds, you want to hold vital funding hostege to our schools, keep them one of the lowest funded schools in the district, force them to make drastic cuts which will be a blow to our local economy since they are the third largest employeer in the city,

all so you can have leaverage to push your agenda which you claim as the communities,

not buying it - either is the community - of course you do have American Majority and their $35,000 worth of lies behind your argument.

Who is behind mine, the citizens, organizations, buinsess community of St. Joespeh, I like my company more than yours.

I want the proper argument to be presented and committment made to progression, improvement and future state. And I put my name to it. The present direction does not address that. It is No in November.

I want the schools to be able to pay there bills, operate not under stress, being the third largest employeer in the city keep its staff so our economy does not go backwards.

I don't want to read that we fund our district the lowest in the state which is our PRESENT direction, Yes on Tuesday - Yes for St. Joseph - If you don't stand up for your kids, who will

A tired argument. The district is easily capable of sustaining itself for even a 12 month period if it takes that long to get an appropriate plan in place.

John, you are absolutely correct and it will be interesting to see whether the people of Saint Joe in fact mean business about wanting change for the schools.

an honest true argument unlike yours which only wants to leverage the future of the schools on your and other agends, as I said before -

those in my corner of the argument, city council members, business community the chamber, citizens and organizations, all local and from St. Joseph - who is in your corner - American Majority who wishes schools to be private and will to misinform, and lie to get what they want. Win or lose in November, I sleep very well at night knowing the side of the arugment Im on.

interesting, "sense", that subliminal message of yours to the employees of the district that they had BEST get out and vote yes or lose their jobs. nice touch. a classic sjsd tactic.

sense - For one hiding behind a perceived anonymity I would be cautious about point fingers on associations that do not exist and you are unable to substantiate. Talk about desperation; try your sliming tactics on someone else as they get no traction from this "corner".

apm - I made no associaiton, strange you seem so defensive about that, I only point out you share the same argument and same point of view. That is very substantiated. Desperation would seem to be yours in attacking the person posting than the argument they posts. The lack of traction in the argument seems to be yours.

Haritage - I never even thought of that, if my honest and thoughtful posts bring out more of the district personal to vote that would be great. My hope is the community understands that point even more. A classic sjsd tactic, really, are you not, as apm would put it, pointing fingers on what does not exist and you are unable to substntiate, apm sure does talk purty =

No In November No In November.

Keep trying!

I get it that the district won't be "zero'd out". However, several of you have indicated that the district cannot sustain itself on a 63-cent levy with a sunset clause. What I'm trying desperately to get you to understand that if a 63-cent levy is too little, a zero-cent levy is 63-cents LESS than that!! Without a sunset clause, there will be no levy AT ALL. If the district attempts to raise the levy amount higher than 63 cents, it will fail. I'm absolutely not sure what you "no" voters are hoping to accomplish.

Pops some of us trying to get them to work for what is right for the schools,chioldren,teachers.Also this would allow time for the economy to turn around.
Also I think there will be 2 new board members with a open mind come April that will be willing to do this and they others will have to come out as well.Something tells me the ones of us who do not want this levy because it does not rpovide are not going to be the majority that makes this thing fail.Something tells me it is going to be the parents that are still upset with the direction the district has gone sine the levy failed in April.They wanted their voices heard and the district would not let them about the sachool closures and the redistricting and now they will have their voices heard when they vote.The poll on KQTV still shows this thing failing and the district should have known they would not get the support of these people and done some calming of the community and earned some trust back before they proceeded with this levy in November.If it does fail we have wasted another 50,000 to put it on the ballot when they should have known better since all of the turmoil was going on and people were very loud about it.Thatwould be 50,000 that could have bought new text books which from what I hear some children still do not have text books.I bet there is waste to be found in the district.Like do they put bids out for services and goods or do they just call people up and say we need this or that done or we need to order this.Waste did happen this summmer when Mr Flowers got all new furniture and I am sure after closing 2 schools there was office furniture somewhere that could have been used.Thet continue to be their own worst enemy.

pops - Here is the best way I have found to keep the levy versus funding issue in perspective.
During the term of the expired levy the district accumulated approximately a 30 million dollar surplus that tied to other associated funding actually mounted to a number now near 35 million dollars.
That meant there was over 6 million dollars of revenue doing nothing but contributing to that reserve total each year. The value of the levy during that same period represented approximately 6 million dollars per year. In other words, if the people do not approve the current levy measure, the district through already made cuts and closings can sustain itself of for a 12 period with no immediate crisis and until an acceptable action plan addressing all concerns within the community is established. That also means realistic future revenue projections for a viable system.
This is playing hardball with the BOE but if it does not happen I believe the community will see nothing but more of the same failed policies continue and worse yet nothing accomplished in advancing the educational excellence of the district.

Its not playing hardball, its holding money hostege. Schools do not run on calander years, budgets are done in April which means if this does not pass in November the district will need to plan another year of budget cuts more drastic than what we have. If anyone really beleives that the community will unite with a common plan in a year is on recreational drugs.

Sence what you fail to listen to is Mrs pullen at one time also said we would be able to operate for a couple of years just like we are so what is it can we can we not.Any further cuts and this community is going to come unglued and the people downtown will have a whole lot of explaining to do.

Everybody needs to get out and vote Tuesday I hear the weather is suppose to be in the low 60,s and sunny and have your vote count.

Do what you want mm - its not my kids who will be having big cuts effect them come after Tuesday -

Hey if your children attend public schools and there is cuts it will effect your children as well as mine unless they are not in school any longer.Oh they must go to one of those private school you do not want.

sense - You best hope there at some point is a configuration of the board that bringings the community to a consensus or, as predicted, you will be in this same cycles of nothing changing including funding forever.
Yes it is hardball and the only thing those holding office understand.