What is to blame for the failure of the school levy and bonds?
Reeder/Roe 20% 122 votes
The economy 23% 136 votes
The school district 55% 323 votes
581 total votes
Latest polls
- Which team will have the best NCAA tournament run? Published March 19, 2010
- Should the U.S. press Israel to stop building in East Jerusalem? Published March 17, 2010
- Should 'No Child Left Behind' be overhauled? Published March 15, 2010
- What's your favorite parade? Published March 13, 2010
- Should St. Joseph's city council review the city manager this month? Published March 11, 2010
- Was 'The Hurt Locker' the best movie you saw in 2009? Published March 9, 2010
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. We do not review every post or respond to every removal suggestion. Comments that threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin, religion or disability will be removed. Comments containing abusive, vulgar or sexually-oriented language will be removed. Comments that spread rumors or lies will be removed. Please discuss only what has been factually proven. Comments posted in all caps will be removed. Stay on topic! Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatant cutting and pasting is not acceptable. Comments must be kept under 250 words or less. Stjoenews.net moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy. Click here for our full user agreement.
MAMA3girls says...
I wish one of the choices was no sunset. Curious to see the %-however doubt all 9,000+ no voters would respond on this forum. If nothing else maybe we can see that the underhanded ways of Reeder/Roe did not influence the voters. Even if misinformation was put out in the way of misleading ads and calls that were suggestive innuendos.
April 11, 2009 at 12:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moreta says...
I agree. I voted for the bond but against the levy because of the sunset clause. I would have supported the levy if the sunset clause had been a seperate issue.
April 11, 2009 at 5:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heyyou2008 says...
It seems that many would blame the district if they voted no because of the sunset. It will be interesting to see what the poll reveals!
April 11, 2009 at 7:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smartmom says...
People - you need to think about this! If the school district puts in a sunset clause, what is going to change in the next five years that would cause them to not need this operating money? These elections cost the taxpayers a lot of money and if you truly were concerned about that, you would vote for the levy so that we do not continue to spend money on these elections. This levy is necessary to run the district and provide the services we currently have.
The $35 million of operating reserves covers roughly 3 months of operations based on a $114 million budget. There are several books on the market right now that urge individuals and businesses to have 6-9 months in savings. The reserve that the school district has shows financial responsibility and prudent business decision skills. The only criticism I can think of is that it should be more.
April 11, 2009 at 7:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
I'm saying the economy and I'm sticking to it.
We've got too many people out of work and/or struggling and too many people denying that problem even exists.
The school board did a fine job, I've never heard of Reeder/Roe until these comments and I applaud our education system -
And I know they will rise above all this, stand tall and proud, make the needed changes and we'll move on.
And in time, we'll be able to supply more money and maybe build new public schools, give raises, all that "good stuff".
When the time is right.
Now was not that time, and people need to not only stop making it personal, but quit taking it personal.
April 11, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
someonesmommy says...
smartmom- we were already paying the levy according to my knowledge, we were just voting to renew it. in my opinion, either way we aren't saving much money to not-support it.
April 11, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
howarddecker says...
smartmom-
you need to think about this... there was NO sunset clause and the issue failed.
call it accountablity, call it validation, call it proof of performance, call it a report card.
a sunset clause gives the citizens the ability to drop the funding if promises are not kept.
April 11, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
paisan says...
Would someone please tell me what promises were not kept?
April 11, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
The sunset gives the tax payers (also)the ability to withhold funds for whatever reason(s) they want to -whether accountable is there or not.
April 11, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rush620 says...
howarddecker - I don't think it had anything to do with promises not being kept, and everything to do with people did not realize what they were voting for to begin with in 2004. This money was for operating costs. When this money was put in a reserve fund, voters got to thinking about the 30 million dollars and figured if the district didn't need it in 2004 they don't need it in 2009 when they are sitting on 30 million. I'm not saying whose right and whose wrong, the fact of the matter is in 2004 the district was not solvent according to state guidelines and at the moment it now is. For how long remains to be seen.
What we don't want is the State of Missouri coming in and taking over our district. Therefore, we need to come up with a solution that will pass, and I for one, like it or not say add the sunset clause back in and put it to the voters one more time.
April 11, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stjoproud says...
There is opportunity for accountability every time we elect the school board. (I do not envy them right now and thank them for their volunteer service) To create a five year election cycle requiring hours and financing to garner the minimum state standard for a levy is not reasonable.
April 11, 2009 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_O says...
Put the sunset clause back in, and cut the bond by one third
then build the schools in phases, you will immeadiatly have relief for the Coleman,district, and a place for the new Northeast students to go, THEN give the SJSD a few years to add the second Phase thus completing the original plan in 2 separate Phases. I think THEN that BOTH the levy and bond will get passed, it shows spending restraint by spending less initialy, then doing a completion in a few years.
This is done a lot with Large Construction Projects, and I have never seen it create any problems, it seems to help everyone involved.
Steve-O
April 11, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
Steve_o, just how do you proposed to build grade schools in phases? A class a year? or, this year we do the gym, next we'll do the cafeteria, next we'll do the office .... Please give some more of your nonsensical answers.
Or since there were two schools which should we build first. The school in the northeast is definitely needed so if that is built first is that just catering to the rich? That is how many many in this town seem to regard anything that happens in the northeast. Do you think that the idea of the Hall/Neely replacement was a bone to that area of town to get their vote. Well, they had their choice and said "screw you" to the district. My thought is well, then they can live with the old buildings and we should just build a new one in the northeast and forget about the Hall/Neely area.
April 11, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
i absolutely believe and have had confirmation that the "bone" which was tossed to hall/neely was exactly that.... a way for the elected school board to emerge without egg on their faces. i would have voted for the bond for only NE and a LONG term plan for the rest of the city. the board has to step up and the chamber of commerce should keep their custom suits out of the picture.
happy to see the good turn out and the results which speak volumes.
April 11, 2009 at 7:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
heritage- I am not sure the results speak volumes -50/50 basically.
What long term plan do you want to see? This addressed a need in mid-town, a need in the northeast and a need in southside. Do you want a vision with a time line for every school/project in the district?
April 11, 2009 at 8:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
attaboy says...
A new school a block from NEELY and 8 blocks from HALL is not a bone! heritage you are a bonehead.
April 11, 2009 at 8:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Distressed01 says...
More and more I believe the district just lost the campaign. They didn't address concerns they should have, they just kept saying "vote for children" not rebutting accusations as they should have. Who in the world were they consulting with? My guess is noone. They should have taken a survey from the get go- feel people out before they even launched the campaign and then listened to the results. The board and politians (definetely agree with that term now!) need to really get in touch with what the MAJORITY of the population wants- not the 20% that voted 'no'.
April 12, 2009 at 7:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truthbetold says...
The school dist is responsible first due to the fact they took out the sunset clause. How stupid was that when you know the mentallity of the voters in Buchanan County. Secondly was the economy. Thirdly I voted yes but I don't blame Ken Reeder or Jeff Roe. Mr Reeder just brought out information that their group felt should be made public or more public. I think and hope he is sincere in the fact that he offered the sjsd his support in finding different alternatives to help the school dist. (not that the sjsd will accept any help he has to offer).
April 12, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
mama, the 50/50 vote does speak volumes. once again, this city is divided on a razor's edge.
i certainly hope that this isn't going to be an ad nauseum re-hashing of the same issues. those who found fault or favor now have an opportunity to put forth their own solutions and agendas. the administration has a lot of soul searching to do, and should stop with the dying camille act.
distressed..... the school board Had a survey which indicated that they would have an extremely difficult row to hoe in the placement of both issues before the voters. they decided to take that chance.
April 12, 2009 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlueMoon1941 says...
Might as well, give it up, It is done.The ones who voted no, Got their say.
April 12, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
howarddecker says...
rush620-
Don't lay that bull hockey on us. The past levy's were presented to the public for the improvement of the district school facilities. I remember and we all saw the signs in front of the schools touting the new windows and additions while construction was going on. These are the old "delivered as promised" signs you see on public projects. Yes, these signs were on Neeley and Hall and Webster. So now let's throw those investments away. You call that prudent.
MAMA3girls-
So Mama, you're saying the school district SHOULDN'T be accountable to the taxpayers? Their not smart enough to re-up levys the goods are delivered. Give me a break.
April 12, 2009 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MAMA3girls says...
howarddecker-you are not reading all of my posts are you are reading into my posts-
I never said the district should not be accountable. Your second statement directed to me does not make sense.
April 12, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
morris says...
When I had a job-- we had to turn in a budget each year. If we had some money left over from last year we hurried and spent it then asked for an increase next year. Sounds familure guess SJSD is no differant than politics as usual.
April 12, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
4wildones says...
If the sunset clause was left in I believe the levy would have passed. The surveys the district did before the vote told them the same thing. They said they don't want to spend money every 5 years to campaign...Now they don't have any of that money so they don't have to worry about it. Backwards thinking if you ask me. They should have been happy with 5 years in stead of none. Besides, if they were running things correctly and being fiscally responsible then they would not have had to "campaign" so extensively in 5 years to get it passed again. Smith said that one way they were going to cut back no matter how the votes went was to freeze technology and textbook spending. WHAT? St Joe is so behind in technology now our kids can't keep up with surrounding districts. If they were going to freeze technology spending anyway.... soemone said that the district is run like any other company in reference to conferences and catered meals and I say that it is not run that way because it is not MY tax money paying for catered lunches in those companies. That is all the difference and the catered lunches aren't even my gripe it is just an example. The technology freezing comment made my mind up for me. The district cut off their nose to spite their face on this one. GREED is a four-letter word no matter how you spell it.
April 12, 2009 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
I blame the school board/administration, mayor, city council, and citizens. Pointing the finger solely at one group would suggest they were completely at fault but there's plenty of blame to go around.
School board/administration - I DO NOT blame them for leaving out the sunset clause. They are at fault for a lack of transparency and educating the voters. The budgets from the previous years should have been made available to the public just as salaries are. This would have allowed the voters to see exactly what happened with the monies from the previous levy and other revenue resources. They should have educated the public on how the state funding works and that the total impact to the district was much larger than just losing the levy. This would have been made easier with a posted budget. Instead, they choose to inform the voters via scare tactics which immediately put some voters on the defense.
Mayor and City council - This was not the SJSD against the community or its leadership. This was entirely about the greater good and health of the community. I do not care whether the Mayor and/or city council was for or against the issue, they are elected to lead the community and there was not a hint of leadership! If they were against it, then they should have expressed as much and worked with the SJSD to provide the community with a comprehensive plan. Keeping your cards (opinions) close to your chest benefited no one in this situation. This should have been a group effort between the citizens, mayor, city council, chamber of commerce, and the SJSD.
Citizens - Both groups have been at the throat of one another for some time which makes the community stagnant on nearly all issues. The "yes" voters should have been more patient with the "no" voters and made a greater effort to educate and persuade rather than jumping to "you just do not understand". It's also obvious from post on other blogs, that many "no" voters did not have a clue what or why they were voting. They should have taken the responsibility to educate themselves on the issues and the results of a failure...instead they choose to keep the SJSD out of their pocket. Even after the vote, I continue to see people throw about things like casino money which makes it fairly apparent they do not understand how that works...another item the district should have stressed.
All groups stated they wanted the best for the children but at the end of day EVERYONE is responsible for the terrible situation you have placed upon the children of your community, your fellow neighbors, the school system, the community, and yourself.
April 13, 2009 at 2:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )