Commentary

Three Reasons to Say No to November CCS Bond

Along with the rest of the board I remain convinced that repairs and renovations to the building are in order. Replacing the roof is an immediate and pressing concern which should be dealt with this summer – or early fall at the latest. There are three reasons why I oppose presenting a comprehensive bond in November.
The first reason is simple: money. I believe that this is an inopportune time to sign off on a nearly $3-million-dollar bond and the associated debt load. While it will be an inconvenience to continue to deal with some of the issues on a stop-gap basis, it is not an unmanageable prospect.
The second reason is that this board does not have time to allocate the resources of time and energy to this major project in the face of significant concerns of educational quality that are now before us – or should be. These concers are replacing the principal, debating whether to have a full or part-time assistant principal, debating whether a literacy co-ordinator should be kept in place of an assistant principal, deciding, in Director Jaunich’s words, “what we are” (meaning are we a K-8 school or a K-5 school and middle school on the same site?), what to do about the math curriculum, and getting the central office to respond appropriately to our concerns.
If these are legitimate concerns then a serious discussion about them – as opposed to turning to the central office and saying “you do it” – is going to involve a lot of meetings, community input and research. The attention to detail required to fully address these issues is considerable. As it is, the task of getting all of the appropriate people in the right place at the right time has become like aligning a Rubic’s Cube, resulting in, among other things, considerable difficulty in adequately warning meetings, not to mention allocating inadequate time for dealing with issues. This is not through intent or duplicity but simply the result of being in a rush. This condition pretty much defeats the intent of a visible process.
Of the three people realistically suited to be the board’s interface with the project, two absolutely do not have time and the third is borderline. Of those present only I understand the complexities, stresses and logistical challenges of a 14-to-18 month building project with its associated displacements, meetings and time requirements. Even when everything else is running smoothly it’s a lot. As a group, if we are paying attention to priorities, we simply do not have time.
The third reason is more subtle: establishing accountability. The community gave us great credibility for flatlining the budget and passed the budget convincingly. As I’ve said elsewhere our operations budget should show negative growth next year. If it does not, it will be legitimate for the community to ask where the money is going to come from and demand some explanation of how choices will be prioritized. Many of the things referred to in paragraph three could have significant cost implications. The community is entitled to some breathing room in order to determine whether the board is serious about continuing to control cost.

Clyde Baldwin
Clyde is a member of the CCS board.