The way this sounds you think it is the end of the world. Talk about desperation at the highest level. What dark cloud? And that argument was bought into? The district made very clear they needed a permenant levy. A large group of citizens made the suggestion to wait a little longer and argue for a permenant one in April. The Community Task
Force brings in the "dark cloud" argument and stresses the need for a levy with a sunset clause to come on the ballot in November. So let me get this straight, the group has a high confidence level for a levy with a sunset clause (which the district did not argue for the first time aroung) but does not have the confidence level to argue for a permenant one. My opinion on this is very clear, the argument for a sunset clause levy is not aggressive enough. And I disagree with Diane Watson's perception completely. The charts in my view say the district needs to re-evaluate and make some changes in the way it manages business and it needs to hold its ground that it truly needs a permenant levy, not one with a sunset("temporary" in my view). The board should challenge the Task Force a little more and make it clear, it is a permenant levy to argue for nothing at all. And if it takes more time to get an argument for it, then do it. I commend Mr. Rucker for weighing in on some insight in recognition of the citizens who recommend to wait till April. As a taxpayer, I do not want to see this argument again in five years. We either argue it now as a need for a permenant levy or in my view we do not need it at all. No halfways, no compromise, if that is the way other communities conduct thier educational business with similar population bases in Missouri then that is what should be argued. Problem solve an argument for a permenant levy and defend it. If there is the confidence to argue for a sunset clause then there should be the confidence level to argue for a permenant levy.
To the district, my opinion on the sunset clause is simple, if you decide to go with the argument for that, then in my view you have just indirectly gave some credence to Mr. Reeder's arguments. You played into just exactly what he wanted and you have also in my view lost credibility in standing your ground. Force the Task Force into arguing for a permenant levy and work with the community to gain buy in. I voted for the intiative in April. No sunset!!!!!Stand by your original argument. Permenant levy!!!That is what you stated you needed. Argue for it!!!

By the way, I saw the "black cloud" the other night. Some really cool lightning with it. Went out on my porch with a glass of good port wine and enjoyed the sound of the rain, got some really good pictures of the lightning. Refreshing and soothing. Completely different from the Task Force interpetation of a "black cloud".

I voted against the "no-sunset" levy, and would again. I feel it's the people's money, not the government's. I think a perfectly logical compromise would be to leave the sunset clause in there, and let the people revisit it. Now...that said....I'd vote for a levy without a sunset clause, as long as there was an iron-clad, permanent attachement that would prevent the district from raising the levy in any way, without voter approval, from the 63 cent point. My entire concern about the lack of a sunset clause is once it becomes permanent, then the levy amount would start to rise...with absolutely no control from the voters. I've been told that wouldn't happen. So far, all I've seen are words...no substance. Either a levy with a sunset clause, or a levy without a sunset clause, but no chance of a levy increase without voter approval. It's either one way or the other, in my opinion.

the "grass roots" movement is misguided. their plan is exactly the same as the blather which caused the last to fail. the election is going to be targeted to a small population, the Task Force will throw money at this levy and force it to pass by vote counting. there will be a show of "reaching out" to the rest of the community, but this group is going for the turnout of their base in the northeast.

rucker is right. this levy , if passed, must do so with the support of the entire community with a broad consensus. if it passes with the same demographics which barely missed last time, fully 3/4 of this city will Never allow the sunset to be removed. what is so scary to these people about actually having an election when people are the most likely to turn out?

november is far too soon. obviously the Task Force does not understand the very real divide in stjo. they do not see that tax bills will arrive with lower amounts due to the sunset on the old operating levy. spare me the comments about how little that amount will be, because the latte' a week group and their arrogance don't get the fact that folks are sufferring. november is when the pressure from christmas starts to reach a fever pitch.

the district and their chart showed that the next four years will show a reduction in savings. it did not show a dark cloud so threatening that it is blotting out the sun. the sirens are not blaring and the need to grab our kids and pets and race to the cellar is not here. the cloud is only on the horizon. the voters do not have to fear that the sky is falling. the district should have at least the framework of a long range plan to present to the voters, and a well presented support of the verifiable need and reason to trust that need for a continuous and adequate revenue stream in place to gain WHOLESALE support of a way forward.

this Task force contends that they can go out into this community and get feedback supporting this in three weeks before the BOE places the language on a single issue ballot. IMPOSSIBLE. do not tell me that they will the have an additional four months to help garner support. in placing this issue back on a ballot with three weeks time to measure a response the BOE will signal the community that it is just more business as usual.

pops I agree with you. I think more people would vote for it if there was no way they could just raise it without voter approval although, I think a lot of people know if they can then they will.

Its shame this article doesn’t cover all of last nights board meeting. While it plays up the debate on what and when to put the issue back on the ballot, and financial straits the district is in. the article fails to mention that while in the middle of school closings and laying off teachers the board voted to spend another $55,000 on more property for the proposed new school in the northeast, a school the people have said NO to twice. Once by public outcry and once by an overwhelming vote against. The article also fails to mention the additional money that will be needed to deal with stream running through the property.
This is a great lesson in democracy to teach our students, that once elected you can ignore the tax payers and do what ever you want. Sunset clause or no sunset clause, November or April I will vote NO for any increase in taxes as long as the current school board and administration is in power.

My recollection is that some seats are up next April for the Board. (Naturally, the poor quality website of the district does not tell you this information.) Various folks on this list want change. Here is your opportunity. Time to start getting together a campaign, etc. Run against the levy, run for the levy, run for burying Reeder under the levee. At the same election we will be replacing another Kenny so .... Heritage, APM, Pops, Apple, micfnng ... put your money where your mouth is.

I have always supported the levy and will support this levy. I do not support any and all administrators and in particular, Melody Smith and Doug Flowers. Both are perfect examples of the Peter Principle. I find Smith to be shrill and authoritarian. I would not believe her if she stated the sky was blue. Flowers has his own problems with staff at Edison (caught in the closet with subordinate). That being said, I still support the levy as the vast majority of the funds do end up in the schools.

please, the coverage of this entire issue from the day the bond/levy went on the ballot has been a sham!!!!!! there is NO transparency.

i watched a proud superintendent ask various "achievers" to stand for the grateful applause of the public........ until the task Force was brought up. then a single man in a suit stood and gave his chicken little speech. sheilds was sitting in the back. kosek and wagner were there, along with others on the Force. did they not want to stand? or was the super remiss in not calling for our gratitude for this group? pffffft.

So, heritage, you going to run??? Tell you what, even though I would probably vote against you, I will donate $100.00 to your campaign once you file the papers.

This school district board has had an opportunity to provide leadership and change for this district , but has chosen to go the old route of the past. It is such an obvious income segregation that this city and district refuse to tackle. All districts have diverse areas to deal with , but most do not continue to layer upon layer the separation of income. North is north , and north end schools --Robidoux and LHS -- should be the home schools for the housing additions being built. Greystone should be a Robidoux addition , but has been designated Bode. Who really makes these decisions? The board? The real estate agents in town? The board should be working to overall improve this district --- in every area of town. They are so focused on helping the real estate community they forget the long range affect of the decisions being made. The quality of teachers is excellent throughout the district but it almost appears that the board doesnt think so .
Levy or not --- because they wont make the district lines true to the schools they should be going to -- I wont support a levy ever.

ask henry allison, he knows more about it than me! and, apparently he is never wrong. ;0)

actually, i have no need for self-aggrandizement. i will only make a decision to run if i believe that i have something unique to bring to the table.

it won't be for BOE.

Apple,
I know that's what YOU, and others have SAID, but I haven't seen the actual proposal from the district. Don't get me wrong...I'm sure you, and everyone else who has said that, truly believes that to be the truth....and perhaps it is, but until I see the actual proposal from the district, I will have difficulty supporting anything that takes the control away from the voters.

pops, you had the opportunity to have that in your possession in the last levy attempt. did you, or you waiting for them to fed ex it to you? i am not trying to be snotty, but the information is there, you need only request it.

I agree with Heritage on that one Pops. If you need that info to vote, why don't you look it up? Unfortunately that is pretty typical here. People don't want to take the effort to find the truth, so they just stick their head in the sand and believe what they want to.

i will vote no everytime no matter when its put on the ballot

Touche'. However, don't you think the district should be transparent enough that I don't have to go dig for information? Considering the concerns that those of us who voted AGAINST the levy have, don't you think they'd go the extra mile to allay our fears and concerns?

However, you're both right...and I WILL look it up.

See...even though we often disagree, I'm willing to admit my shortcomings....just thought I'd point that out...

pops, i would say to you that even if the district gives you information, it is wise to always do your own fact check. pre-digested information in any political arena can be dangerously biased.

I agree.heritage. However, I want to see the district's proposal...something that isn't out there as yet. When it is, I'll check it out.

Alonso indicates the task force is a "grass roots group". One of the leaders of the group specifically stated at the meeting last Thursday that the task force was NOT the same thing as the grass roots group that was known as the coalition for progress. Alonso was also at that meeting. This is not a grass roots group, this is a group that was formed by invitation only.

Based on the selective nature of the members of the task force, it should not surprise anyone that the group has completely missed the point. The overwhelming majority of Saint Joseph is angry and distrustful of this Board and this administration including the east side after the redistricting and revocation of many transfers.

This group is "confident" that they will get the levy passed, they plan to do it by rallying what they believe to be their base, not by consensus building. The citizens of Saint Joseph should not be satisfied by this.

It should also be noted that whether the levy is put on the ballot in November or next August, the end result of funding to the district is the same. They will not have the funds for the 2009-2010 year. Was this reported in the article and I missed it?

In response to Doug Flowers, my daughter will be a freshman at Benton this year,she attended Hyde from K-6.Mr. Flowers was her principal from K-5th before he retired. To this day out of all the educators she has met Mr Flowers is by far her favorite. I have not 1ce had a problem with Mr. Flowers he always had a open door and honestly cared about all his students. I can only speak about my experiences, I would vote for Mr. Flowers & support him. If I asked my daughter today who was the best educator she has had I guarantee she would say Mr. Flowers,so thank you Mr. Flowers for being such a important person in my daughters life.

To the people who will not vote for our childrens education that is a shame. But I do think we need to put the levy back on the ballot in November with the sunset claus on it and in April vote in a different board of education and then make changes to the superintendents office and administration. The people who are there now are not trusted anymore and they will not listen to you or the communitys opinions and they will continue to have bad public opinion. There needs to be changes made to their idiotic policys and the boundrys they drawed with their pencils they make no sence at all. This task force needs to hold several open form meetings throughout the town to listen to the general publics concerns.Well come August when school starts we will see the mess they have created for our children and we will see childrens grades drop and this administration and board calls themselfs educators. Now since they have closed 2 schools and let 98 staff go what will they do with the extra money off of the 63 cent because there will be 2 less schools to run and 98 less staff to pay should be some money left to get the current school up to date and to start building at least one school I would think.

mm1967 - there aren't too many people here saying they won't vote for our children's education, they just disagree on the terms. If this district won't have access to the money until 2011 whether they vote for it in November or in August of 2010, why the hurry? Wouldn't you be more comfortable voting for a new levy when you knew who the new Board members would be and if there were any changes to the administration?

The 63 cent levy with a sunset clause is not even what this board thinks they need. THEIR OWN numbers indicate they need more. THEY argue that they cannot effectively operate and plan with a sunset clause. The 63 cent levy in November is a mistake that this city can not afford to repeat. It is the wrong levy, wrong time, wrong terms.

The sunset clause is not what the district wanted. They very clearly stated at the beginning of the year they needed the permenant levy to operate effectively. They were adimantly against renewing a levy with a sunset clause. Now this is in my view is the sound of desperation. In my opinion a sunset levy if passed will not be used for its intended purposes. It will be hoarded to the reserve because 5 years from now we will be back at it and the outcome of what will be that is uncertain. The district needs to stand its ground with what it truly wanted from the beginning and the Task Force needs to be encouraged to argue for a permenant levy. I am literally blown away by a group of highly educated and skilled people who do not have the confidence to argue that, but do have the confidence to argue for a short term solution. A group of people who made it very clear they do not believe the sunset clause is the way to go and the same group of people who back in the beginning of the year thought a levy with a sunset clause was a setback. I agree with 238er on the issue of elections and having a say to remove some people and I cannot wait till that day gets here. Heritage, I hope you throw your hat in the ring and run for one of those positions.

MM...... you should also know that this board is not structured to be as easily "overthrown" as , for instance, our city council. only two members are replaced in the cycle.

kidder, no the article does not point out that the money from any levy in november would not be available in this tax year. but, i believe that it would have been difficult for mr. weston to have missed that fact, since he was sitting right next to me when i stated it in the first of my three points on why the november date is not well considered. i believe that that point was verified by supt. smith in later commentary. ;0)

ufc08... 2 different men. Flowers from Hyde was Mike

I agree that we need the levy for our childrens education and we need new board of education members and it is to bad they all are not replaced, but beyond that I personally think the administration in the SJSD needs changed as well the general public does not trust them any longer because of their actions. It does not matter to me when the levy is put back on there but if it is to pass it will have to have the sunset claus on it. The older population in St Joseph is the reason for this and this is the way the voters responded the last time and said if the sunset claus was on there they would have voted for it. Listen it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what is wrong with our education in St Joseph and that the public does not trust the board or the administration but what matters is our children and their education and the administration has done all they can to mess up our childrens education just wait and see what August brings when the schools start back up. We will vote for the levy when it is put back on the ballot but there needs to be more communication between this task force and the board of education as well as the administration with the public not this shove this down our throats and bully us and this is the way it is going to be attitude toward the public and rthe children.

MM, i don't think that you need worry about the "task force" communicating with the Administration. they are nearly joined at the hip, as far as i can see.

the task force is NOT anything even remotely resembling a "grass roots" group. it does have the appearence of being diverse as far as geographic and economic strata, but most of the people on it strongly supported the previous failed bond/levy.

Heritage...do the people on the task force respresenting those areas of town not live in those areas? According to the list published on this site they did.

biggie, i meant to be more clear in my post, sorry. while the TF did take care to pick from different areas, there is very little diversity in thought, imho. obviously i do not know everyone on that list! but i have checked enough to know that the majority voted YES twice.

yeah, i know reeder is in there. keep thine enemies close.........

i know that cathy mckinley is ONLY on the list because she was persistent in finding out where the meetings were taking place. she emailed sharon kosek repeatedly for that information, and never got a reply. utimately a little "detective" work revealed the time and location of the last meeting, or cathy would have been left off. other members of the original grass roots citizens for progress? wanted to continue the discussion and were ignored, not notified or left to believe that the group had gone on hiatus. no information was provided to the media, as far as i could ascertain.

that just smells bad, and it will not sit well with the voters.

I really would like to just know what it takes for the board and the district to listen to us parents concerns, because they have acted to harshly to quickly on this school closings and redistricting and the transfer policys. It is like our hands are tied behind our backs and we cannot even advocate for our children anymore.Do we have to lie about things to send our children to the school they have attended for they are not uprooted I mean what do we have to do to get their attention. If and when the levy passes they will have their money back and will have 2 less schools and still have 1400 uprooted children, it seams as if a different plan could have been looked at other than what they did.

Wow. Lets all take a deep breath. There is no conspiracy, this is the criteria we used to put together the Community Task Force:

Members of the Community Task Force are made up of individuals from the St. Joseph School District voting area and
 All parts of town (north, south, midtown, south-southeast, and northeast)
 Both males and females
 Diversity in age from high school to senior citizens
 A variety of income
 Diversity in religion
 Diversity in ethnicity
 Religious leaders
 Business owners and employees (small and large)
 Both white- and blue-color workers as well retired workers
 Fire Department and Police Department members
 Union representatives
 Representatives of each of the three public high schools
 PTA Council President
 Parents and grandparents
 Parents or students who come from families who will not need/or need to change schools due to transfers or school boundaries.
 Many of the individuals on the committee attended Coalition for Progress meetings.
 Several individuals were recommended to be on the committee.
 There have been a variety of opinions expressed by members—some very strong
 A majority of the people on the committee were ready to move forward with a proposal to the Board of Education.

*Some of the Community Task Force members have attended all meetings; some have attended one or two of the meetings; a few have been unable to attend any of the meetings. All agreed to serve on the committee.

I would, however, like to stop dwelling on the trees and begin to look at the forrest. We all need to begin asking ourselves "what do I what public education to be in St. Joseph, and how do I help us get there."

This is the recommendation the Board of Education is considering. It was presented last night by Community Task Force member Gary Myers, a local attorney.

Our vision is for the administration, the board and the task force to work together to develop and implement a community–engineered, long–range plan. Collectively, we’ll listen to what the community wants of its public education and then, as a united front, work to deliver a plan that will fully fund education into the distant future and develop a timeline for building new schools. This is the long–range goal.
In the short–term, the school district needs to keep the lights on, the teachers and staff paid and the buildings running. Therefore, we are prepared to run and fund a campaign to put a .63 cent operating levy, with a five–year sunset, on the November 2009 ballot.
It is important for the community to understand, no one on our task force believes funding public education in five–year increments is an effective method, nor do we believe .63 cents is enough to fully fund public education. However, we must listen to what voters said in the April 2009 election and believe the .63 cents with a sunset clause is necessary to see the operating levy pass.
With that said, our campaign message will be clear to voters: “This .63 operating levy with a sunset is not the END to this discussion. It is instead, the BEGINNING.”
In conjunction with the operating levy campaign, we’ll start soliciting input from voters on what they want from public education in St. Joseph. We believe through this process voters will begin to take ownership of the long–range plan, begin to trust its architects and have a new found support for public education.
The campaign committee and the hundreds of volunteers it will enlist, will go door–to–door to answer questions and build support; and along the way begin to frame the understanding that it is the community’s responsibility to fund public education. Our city’s future will be determined by the strength of our school system.

Please feel free to contact me directly at stjoefutureschools@gmail.com.

Tama, you asked: "what do I what public education to be in St. Joseph, and how do I help us get there."

Let me be one of the first to respond. I want the public education in St. Joseph to be better than it is now. I want decisions made by the board and administration to take into account the needs and wants of every segment of this community. I expect complete transparency of our board and administration. I expect for teacher salaries in St. Joseph to be competitive so that we can retain and recruit the best people. It is my expectation that each child who attends any school in this district will have the same quality education. These are not unrealistic expectations. The 63 cent levy with a sunset clause doesn't get us there. Not by a long shot.

It would seem by the last part of your question, you might be attempting to run down the same path that the last campaign did, accusing no voters of being against children. Trust me when I tell you that is not the case. We are not against children, we are against the wrong plan. The 63 cent levy with a sunset clause in November is the wrong levy, wrong time, wrong terms.

There is a problem that I have been talking about for some time, and in some areas, been castigated for. This school district has a lousy community relations problem. It closed 2 schools, moved l400 young people, which has been documented.But, there are other problems. There are other schools, in other parts of town, that were closed years ago. The people of those communities are still upset. Most notable to me, were Sherwood ( a building that does not even exist any more) and Blair, which houses Troester Media Center. These buildings were closed some time ago, but emotions still run negatively high toward the District. That's not even including schools that are in the north side and south side of town, that long ago closed. The District had better have a good solid plan to get it passed. The hard approach with voters will not work, as evidenced by previous comments. Put what happened this last year, with the state of the economy, with an apparent indifference on the part of the school administration, to the people it serves....They had better have a very good plan. Relating to November or April, a little common sense would tell you that more people, who do not have students in the school district, will vote this time. It is possible that the school district will suffer for an unwise idea this previous April, of putting both an operational levy and a school bond issue on the same ballot.

apple, i agree that the vote should come in the february, or possibly april election. it should be a two part ballot with the first having 65 cent and a second with a provision for an additional amount ( my vote would be for a total of $1.10). both permanent, or the second amount could have a concession of being sunset in five years. the april date would bring the newly elected board members into the fray, and would attract the most potential voters. the last election was too narrowly crafted and depended far too much upon facebook and school staffers. the public has to be engaged, people in each community have to really get out there and work this through. i believe it can be done.

elections which depend on vote counting and narrow turnouts have much more volatility than those which allow and encourage democracy.

the framework of a ten year plan could be formed by april, and the voter's should demand some very solid promises, including an architect's preliminary study, site plans, etc.

tama, i think the vote is too soon. the black cloud comment was a little over the top. there IS NO immediate need for funding. the single issue vote will only bring out the extremes on either side, just as it did in the last election.

i thought this task force grew out of the coalition for progress. now you say that "many of the individuals ... attended the coalition....."

so, Who initiated this particular Task Force, and why is it considered the de facto organization to present their particular recommendation to the BOE? i am seriously interested in the process whereby this particular group was designated as spokesperson for the district.

apple is right. you should have asked the questions before you put the recommendation before the BOE. her drowning analogy is spot on. going door to door with a plan you have already said you will fund and are confident will pass is more than a little presumptive.

the evidence that the funding is not vital this year, or even next year was put in front of the meeting last night. the district has done yeoman's labor in saving, and now those savings should be used until a prudent and rational plan is made.

yougotta, so what is the alternative? If this levy is wrong, what would be right?

238 - Let's start with just the basics. The district says they can not effectively operate with a sunset clause. Take it off and get the buy in from the public. At this point, I don't think that is going to happen with this board, and maybe not this administration. There is too much mistrust. Things like spending 55K on another piece of property when they are claiming to be in dire financial straights probably isn't going to get them any additional credibility.

Second, the districts numbers indicate that they can't live on 63 cents for the next five years. Find out what you need and ask for that. Then tell us what we are going to get for our money through a long range plan. Transparency is key.

The main problem here is credibility. Once faith has been restored in the SJSD, I believe that the community will do what is right for the children as long as the plan is all inclusive and takes into consideration the needs and wants of all.

You guys are selling St. Jo short if you are willing to put a bandaid on it instead of addressing the root problem, finding a long term solution and building a consensus.

Tama "we must listen to what voters said in the April 2009 election and believe the .63 cents with a sunset clause is necessary to see the operating levy pass."

That's not what they said. You still aren't listening.

Problem is that this community has been sold bandaids for too long ... one project in downtown = revival of downtown ... a sunsetting levy = permanent fix to school finance ... a little seal coat = fixed roads .... a little asphalt overlay = a roadway ... a pig plant = no more unemployment ... a new Target store = jobs for everyone.

The St. Joseph community has got to realize that it has to permanently and continually invest in itself. Investment is not a one shot deal, it is a series of attempts. Some succeed, some fail. You hope on average more succeed than fail. We got a city council of mostly incompetents who were elected on the promise that one shot can fix everything. Well, the dog caught the car and realized it had no clue how to drive. Fortunately their terms expire soon. Communities that thrive are continually looking for the next project. Companies do that same. Just last week, Apple released the iphone 3Gs. If Apple were St. Joe it would have done the Lisa and stopped, instead, the did the ipod, the mac, the itouch, the iphone (and all various submodels). They are back at the drawing board every single day. St. Joseoh is unwilling to make the effort to return to that drawing board every single day and until it is willing to do so will continue to fail.

St. Joe did succeed at one point, men like Milton Tootle created multiple companies. They lead the city. They demanded responsiveness from elected officials. Now we have elected officials how refuse to listen, act like buffoons, call our business leaders names (remember Piggy). We get what we have sown. Some of us have the ability to leave this community behind and will do so. Those who can't just rot.

Heritage, in one of our private correspondences, I referred to staying away from just, "joiners," meaning people who join in causes, go out in the public once and then after the election, disappear, in order to go on to another cause. In your opinion, are these people, that are on these committees, active in the communities they are representing? Do they have a heart for the people of the areas they are representing? Are they able to represent attitudes which may be in conflict with their own beliefs? I am concerned that it would appear from other posts, that there is an attitude of exclusion toward those who might not agree with prevailing thought. It appears to me that these committees are turning into forts: "It's my territory. Don't tread on it! And whatever you do, don't come through the doorway. I know best. You don't."

diligent i would not presume to try to say what is in the minds or hearts of most of the people on the list, since i do not know many of them. i am very new to this community, and can only speak to what i see personally. some of the names on the list are this city's "old war horses" some are well connected, which surely is not a sin. i do know others who i would trust with my life, while i have disagreed vigorously with them, as any thinking person would do from time to time.

i am not trying to castigate anyone who has thrown their opinions into this effort. i find the appearance of the effort on its surface to be flawed.

i find myself again agreeing with 238 in his assessment of the short term fixes which are now coming home to roost. everyone wants something, and when someone or some area seems to be getting more attention, the rest of the chickens begin to squack. i am just as guilty of that mentality as the next person.

in answer to your question, diligent, i think that the issue with the schools can be looked at longer without threatening the savings which the BOE has ammassed for just such an eventuality, and i believe that a case should be made for the argument for a LONG TERM solution. enough with the bandaids.

it appears that my chickens have bred with ducks......... squawk!!!!!

Fortunately Mr. Rucker demonstrates some common sense.
The levy on a November ballot has a good formula for disaster. As for all the talk of confidence by the "grass-roots" task force; one might recall the predictions by the board and some members of this group on what the previous outcome would be.
Taking the time to work through the community and doing right will provide the best potential for success.

To clarify about the $55k - this money was not spent to purchase additional property, it is simply to mitigate the existing land.

As taken from the District's website:
" The St. Joseph School District purchased a 16-acre tract at Cook and Bishop Roads for future construction of an elementary school.

A small stream enters the northwest corner of the property and travels some 800 feet. The stream is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The District was required to provide the Corp with a mitigation plan since the stream would be taken out of service due to construction.

The Corp accepted a one-time payment of $55,275 to the Missouri Stream Stewardship Trust Fund.
Once the payment is made, the District has 24-months to remove the stream. After that work is completed, the Corp will release control of the property to the District and clear it for construction. A proposal for removal of the stream is being prepared by Bartlett & West."

More money will be spent on this land in the near future, money that may not be readily available. This is exactly why the District should not have purchased additional land without the buy-in from taxpayers. They are now committed to removing this stream within 24 months, regardless of availability of funding or plans for future school.

This is a classic example of how the Board fails to properly develop a long-term plan, and assumes it will always get taxpayer blessing before getting approvals.

"What do I what public education to be in St. Joseph, and how do I help us get there."

I will be the second to respond to this: I want public education not just in St Joseph but nationally to be the no 1 educational program in the world which at the present time it is not, the system is broke across the board. I want to see St. Joseph take advantage of future opportunities to become the best in the country. I want the community as a whole to have the confidence to show off every school building in St. Joseph regardless of what section of town it is in to outsiders without worry. I expect the school administration and board to manage tax dollars by using the money for its intended purposes. I expect things to be replaced if they need to be replaced, (100 year boilers come to mind, safety and health concerns to be addressed if they are real, a long term plan that addresses all buildings for the future, salaries to be competitive and above all for the district to stay up to speed with other communities in funding and never fall behind. (Like defending the permenant levy argument and not caving to a sunset clause). I will help by supporting what I believe are the best solutions moving forward, I will not support causes or groups that do not listen to the public and alienate a large portion of the population base. And I will vote out when election time comes those I believe are not working for the best interest of the public and those who do not defend their original arguments. I will adiminantly challenge any group who settles for a compromising argument to "band-aid" a major problem especially the majority in the group have stated time and time again a sunset clause levy is not the way to fund education, but will argue it anyway. Over 3 quarters of the people in the Task Force literally "trashed" the sunset option during the bond/levy campaign. So now it is supposed to be the "right" thing to do?
I am one of those who supports a permenant levy to be place on the table possibly in April, long term solutions and plans to address all buildings and will buy into a sunset clause levy. The district stated very clearly they needed a permenant levy. It failed the first time because the communication with the public was lousy. The voters did not say they wanted a sunset clause levy in order for it to pass. They want to see the money used for its intended purposes across the board and also want to see improvements in all neighborhoods. I say again to the district, defend your position with a permenant levy argument and encourage the Task Force to argue for it, accept nothing less.

To clarify and correct an error, I meant to state "I will not buy into a sunset clause levy". Buying into that means in my view Mr. Reeder's arguments had merit and we are caving to special interests who wish to dictate how St. Joseph conducts its business. And that is what I believe the Task Force argument does, just that.

By the way, Apple, some really very nice and well founded viewpoints on your posts.

All of you that say you will note vote for this levy with the sunset claus come on if this is what it takes to pass the levy for our childrens education and for the good of the district at this point in time. This would give them at least 5 years and that is more than they have now and it would also give them 5 years to get the publics trust back as well as 5 years to work on a long term plan that they could take to the public. I personally do not see a levy passing right now without the sunset claus on it. Also with the distrust and the public being mad at the district without it is would be sure failure for the levy in November, Febuary, or in April. Where I live is around alot of our older retired citizens and this is what I have heard they want a sunset claus on the levy. Open your ears and listen to the public better yet look at what is happening to our communities children.

apple, i got the exact same answer from doug flowers during the break in the board meeting..... that april is the time for contracts for teachers. okay. hire them. as i have pointed out, the district showed us on their own fiscal projections that the expenditures , projections of income, and spend down of the reserve will not cause the district to feel stress until fiscal year 2012. i have every faith in the ability of the district to get behind a well reasoned and documented need for a larger and more permanent operating levy in that time. how many elections will there be in that time.........10? in that time the voters will have the opportunity to elect two more BOE members, whose platforms will almost certainly include their thoughts on levy/bond/neighborhood schools. the outcomes of those elections will provide a bellweather for the future willingness to support a permanent vs sunset levy option. there may even be a different superintendent. the economy will hopefully have stabilized. a community outreach without the urgency of this incredibly short turn around will be able to succeed.

remember that the district was able to amass a 32 million dollar war chest with the .63 levy. any loss of the savings which will be put toward the deficit will be regained through the passage of the next operating levy. this is the nature of any budgetary ebb and flow.......

i sounds like the "we need to hire new teachers" is going to be the new talking point. i enjoy talking to mr. flowers, he is a very persuasive man. i am not buying it.

Two questions: Given the concerns of alleged mold at Neely and Hall, and even from one comment, at Skaith, I am more curious as to where the water is going to be diverted at Bishop and Cook road. Is this another potential mold problem in the future? Also, what is the interest amassed on 32 million over a month's time? What is it used for?

H, don't forget that the because of the levy the district was able to get more funds from the state, now it has lost not only the levy funds, but the state funds also. Throw in that the district's levy is now below a state minimum so there maybe additional repurcussions.

While I do not support Dr. Smith, to replace her will take at least a year, then allow the new person time to get their feet on the ground, then the staff has to examine whether or not to put forward a levy and how much, then the board has to vote, then allow time to get on a ballot, then allow time for the levy to actually kick in. Easily take 3 years. So, we live with the devil.

kinda scary how we agree lately, 238. i was never against the permanent levy. i regret not giving it my vote. i want to see the issue back on the ballot, and with a "bump" in the amount.

i think i got a little carried away with my pipe dream on the super being replaced.......... ;0)

from what i saw and heard on the projections for revenue at the meeting the table clearly showed that, while there is justified concern, the "black cloud" comment is hyperbole on a par with the "black helicopters" crowd. those numbers were adjusted to calculate the "new reaity" for the budget. i truly do not get the complete collapse and urgent need to hurry this process forward in november.

The reason to do it in November is due to the fact that you will see what will happen to both your personal and property taxes. You are also forgetting there are expensive sewer problems looming. I am curious as to why you are interested in dismissing the superintendent. Do the majority of her employees support her? If the average employees support her, she's probably done all right. Remember, she hasn't been there too long. I will admit it seems her rise was rather quick. I really think you have to think politically in understanding why anything is done. They realize they have to get any idea past the people. While I am not in love with the sunset clause, that has been discussed, it is a good-faith exercise on the part of the district. They can say,"If we don't do a good job, you can always repeal it." That's what they did in 2004. And, in the mean time, they can learn about public relations.

Ok folks, you get mad when they have a huge amount in reserve, but what would you expect when they can't count on having operating funds after 5 years. I am not a fan of this Board or this Administration, however, all I can say is that thankfully, they saved that money since the levy was not renewed. That being said, since they have the money in reserves, we do have a little time to come up with a plan that will benefit everyone and time to get the appropriate buy in from the community.

This does not need to be passed in November. The District needs to start talking straight to the public, stop trying to scare people into voting for something that even the district doesn't believe in. Otherwise, 5 years from now, they will have another large amount saved in reserve because they can't count on having a permanent operating levy. Then we will start the same vicious cycle. The district can not operate effectively or efficiently with a sunset clause.

diligent, i already pointed out the issue of the change in the tax in a previous comment. are you saying that it will be a positive or a negative effect?

as to thinking politically, perhaps the district should have tried that in the past failed election. they didn't.... they targeted a small coterie of supporters and prayed for rain. it failed. it made people angry. it was polarizing.

as for my forgetting the sewer issues, hardly. you haven't been posting here very long, dilly, but i was more than a little cranked about the passage of the last CIP and the big ballyhoo about what a huge margin it passed with. Then the city and the mayor brought up the..... whoops, sewer issue. do you think the district should try to hoodwink the voting public as was done with the CIP and the massive money behind that campaign?

now the district is going back to the same well. even in the old western movies when really thirsty people saw dead people and horses next to a water hole they had the sense not to drink that koolaid.

kidder, BINGO.

"That being said, since they have the money in reserves, we do have a little time to come up with a plan that will benefit everyone and time to get the appropriate buy in from the community."

Unfortunately, not enough time for the two schools they immediately closed when the levy failed. :(

I agree with StJoeJane -- I will never vote "Yes" for the school district tax levy. I've been involved in the school system and have seen the waste of money. The school administrators buy new furniture, pay for staff luncheons (except for dishes the teachers bring), take people who don't belong with them to meetings out-of-town, remodel and redo at whim, etc. If the buildings the district is closing are in such bad shape why would anyone want to buy them or why would the district use them for anything else? It's unfortunate that Neely and St. Patrick's are both within walking distance from each other and both are closed. Look around at the old buildings in town that have withstood the test of time. Of course, you need to repair as needed, I do the same thing to my home. The district also wants to keep up with school districts larger in size as far as pay. Cut back the salary schedule or don't give out raises. That's been done in the past and the way I see it, if you're dedicated and you want to keep your job, then you'll stay. Other schools and businesses don't "give" employees their health insurance. Why not have school district employees pay for all or the biggest part of their insurance policies, a lot of other people have to do that. The way I see it and several people I know have said, there's no way they will ever vote for the tax levy, especially without a sunset clause. The district has already wasted a lot of money on the past election and on the purchase of land so they can build new schools. Look around, money isn't flowing freely!

This line that some are throwing around because we are against a sunset clause we do not care for the kids is crap. I do not buy it at all. I defend what I believe in and the argument should continue to be what the district stated they needed, a permenant levy to operate effectively. I want to see the school board and the
Task Force do the same, argue for what you truly believe in is the best solution and defend it. I am disappointed in the District and the Task Force for not defending their true positions on this and coming up with good arguments to support them. Sunset clause means to me the District does not need it. It is a temporary levy nothing more. I stand by what I have to say, "you need it or you don't". No other community in the state with a large population base has this. A sunset clause is not meant for operational expenses that are always needed, they are designed for projects with a shelf life.

johncourter,
I'd suggest that the insinuation that those of us who DO want the sunset clause don't care about the kids is equally crap....
Both sides care about the kids, OK?!!! We have differing ideas how to best care for them, but both sides do care. I know, for a fact, that I prefer a sunset clause, but I do care deeply about educating our children. I can tell you care just as much...and yet you prefer NOT to have a sunset clause. Outside of you and I, I can't say!!

Heritage, I regret that I don't know much about the previous CIP campaign. I must admit I will look at it more critically,next time. Twothreeeighter is proving my point that you have to have a happy staff or at least a staff, who feels things are being done fairly, to help get this across. The one thing that the city and the school district have in common is that they both will be asking you and me for more tax support. I must admit in my dealings with the city, I have generally found them to be courteous and willing to help. Have you found the school district to be the same way? Relating to your question about "hood-winked", you will find people who will say that the school district has done much the same thing. One time the school district was accused of trying to get the county to hold back the county property tax statements until AFTER the levy election. The fact that they always try for an election where it is anticipated that there are less people who will vote--isn't that kind of going in the back door to get what you want? As for me, when they say it is "for the children," and then relocate l400 of them, I wonder if it is indeed, "for the children."

Apple, YOU, and a couple of others, have "assured" me that won't happen. I've seen NOTHING from the district, in writing, that outlines any future increases would have to appear before the voters. What I CAN say is that in the PREVIOUS levy attempt, there was NOTHING that prevented the district from raising the levy from 63 cents to whatever without going to the voters. There was nothing that allowed them to do so, either. My POINT is...if it's NOT SPELLED OUT, anything's possible.
Apple, while you hate my rambling about the sunset clause, for now, that's the ONLY way I can see, legally, where the voters still have control over any increases. IF...and I still say "if"...the district wants this thing to pass WITH a sunset clause removed, there needs to be strict, clear wording that prohibits ANY increases without voter approval.
I agree...permanent expenses need a permanent levy, but I work hard for my money without "Big Brother" having free access to my bank account via increased taxes at his whim.

Pops, from Missouri Revised Statutes:

Schools, certain districts, operating levy adjustment required when, effect--not to affect senior citizen tax relief benefit.
164.013. 1. When the revenue from the rate of one cent on the dollar of the state sales is collected for distribution under the provisions of section 163.087, RSMo, the school board of each seven-director, including special districts, urban and metropolitan school districts, after determining its budget for the school year and the rate of levy needed to produce the required revenue as provided in section 164.011, and after making any other adjustments to the levy that may be required by any other law, shall, unless at least a simple majority of district voters voting thereon have approved a proposal to forego all or part of a reduction in the total operating levy for school purposes as provided for in this section, reduce the total operating levy for school purposes in an amount sufficient to decrease the revenue it would have received therefrom by an amount equal to fifty percent of the previous fiscal year's sales tax receipts excluding the sales tax revenue estimated to be received by the district attributable to pupils residing on federal lands and excluding the amount of sales tax revenue estimated to be necessary to offset the loss of property tax revenue to the school district under the provisions of section 50.338, RSMo, except that the provision of this section shall not require a school board to reduce its total operating levy for school purposes below an amount which is equal to the highest amount specified in subsection 2 of section 163.021, RSMo, as an eligibility requirement for state aid or increased state aid pursuant to section 163.031, RSMo. Loss of revenue, due to a decrease in the assessed valuation of real property located within the school district as a result of general reassessment, and from state-assessed railroad and utility distributable property based upon the previous fiscal year's receipts shall be considered in lowering the rate of levy to comply with this section in the year of general reassessment and in each subsequent year. For any district for which the total assessed valuation of the district is reduced as a result of a natural disaster for which the county or counties containing the district were designated a disaster area, the reduction of the total operating levy for school purposes pursuant to this section may, at the district's discretion, be calculated either on the district's current assessed valuation or upon the district's assessed valuation for the year preceding the natural disaster, until the fifth year following the designation as a disaster area or until the district's assessed valuation equals or exceeds the district's assessed valuation for the year preceding the disaster, whichever first occurs.

part 2 of 3

In the event that in the immediately preceding year the school district actually received more or less sales tax revenue than estimated, the school board shall adjust its operating levy for the current year to reflect such increase or decrease. Adjustments in the tax rate of a school district pursuant to the provisions of this section shall in no way affect the eligibility of claimants for benefits, or the amount of claimants' benefits, under the provisions of sections 135.010 to 135.035, RSMo. Such claimants shall, if they are otherwise qualified, receive the benefits to which they were or would have been entitled in the year prior to March 3, 1983. There shall be transferred from the school district trust fund to the general revenue fund an amount equal to the difference in the amount paid or credited or which would have been paid or credited to individuals qualifying under sections 135.010 to 135.035, RSMo, in the year prior to March 3, 1983, and the amount paid or credited under the provisions of such sections each year thereafter. The director of revenue shall certify the amount payable from the school district trust fund to the general revenue fund to the state treasurer, the commissioner of administration and the state board of education on or before the first day of each month. Any school district required to reduce its total operating levy under the provisions of this section shall not become ineligible for state aid under the provisions of section 163.021, RSMo, because of such required reduction. In the event a district fails to reduce its operating levy in compliance with this section, an amount equivalent to the amount by which the district fails to reduce its levy shall be deducted from the district's apportionment of state aid under the provisions of section 163.031, RSMo, for the following year.
2. In a year of general reassessment, as defined by section 137.073, RSMo, or assessment maintenance as defined by section 137.115, RSMo, in which a school district in reliance upon the information then available to it relating to the total assessed valuation of such school district revises its property tax levy pursuant to section 137.073 or 137.115, RSMo, and it is subsequently determined by decisions of the state tax commission or a court pursuant to sections 138.430 to 138.433, RSMo, or due to clerical errors or corrections in the calculation or recordation of assessed valuations that the assessed valuation of such school district has been changed, and but for such change the school district would have adopted a different levy on the date of its original action, then the school district may adjust its levy to an amount to reflect such change in assessed valuation, including, if necessary, a change in the levy reduction required by this section to the amount it would have levied had the correct assessed valuation been known to it on the date of its original action, provided:

part 3 of 3

(1) The school district first levies the maximum levy allowed without a vote of the people by article X, section 11(b) of the constitution; and
(2) The school district first adopts the tax rate ceiling otherwise authorized by other laws of this state; and
(3) The levy adjustment or reduction may include a one-time correction to recoup lost revenues the school district was entitled to receive during the prior year.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C100-199/1640000013.HTM

We are all presumed to know the law. I don't think it is the district's job to educate you as to the law of tax levies.

apple, not that it any of your business, but I worked for the school district and spent much time in numerous buildings. The district doesn't have control over the cost of various utilities, nor do we as homeowners. What they do have control over are the expenses that some building administrators unnecessarily cause. The district provides internet service throughout the district, but some administrators order internet that is charged to the SJSD for their personal use in their schools. Others, instead of using SJSD maintenance to do repairs or remodeling in their building call in outside businesses. That costs more than in-house work.

twothreeeighter, gee, couldn't you come up with an original name for this list?

Apple, has a good question. Also I would guess your are some kind of maintenance employee of the district. Sometimes it is better to have outside businesses perform the work. Better quality, cheaper in the long run. Also, did you realize that those business pay YOUR salary?

Apple, I don't blame twothreeeighter for not telling you what he or she does. Surely you would understand that there could be repercussions. Since you don't seem to understand my comments about a happy or satisfied staff, think in terms of votes. If there are somewhere around l000 employees, and these employees have spouces and offspring, is it not fair to say that that might generate anywhere from between 1200 and 1800 votes, conservatively? Consider that there are over ll,000 students in the public school system in St. Joseph. Isn't it possible that there is a pool of at least 12,000 parents in which to draw support for these issues? If both the parents groups and district personel feel that the school district deals with them improperly, that's a pretty good pool of eligible voters going down the tubes. Conversely, if employees are happy and parents are happy, then you are adding on the potential parents and school staff and those good soccer moms and wonderful playground moms--it would be a coalition that would be very hard to beat,and the school district would be much more likely to pass issues they want. The problem is, this doesn't seem to be the case, right now. Relating to your comment about St. Joe workers feeling underpaid. If you are going to most places along the Belt Highway, chances are you are dealing with the minimum wage person. They often work hard and they don't get paid well. They can't afford the kind of home you can. Sometime, sit down and talk with these people about how their lives are going.It will be very enlightening.

238er, You mean to tell me that you think that having inhouse people is more expensive than hiring out? Considering the fact that the inhouse person is already paid, I have a hard time figuring out your logic. Considering the fact that the inhouse person is already under contract and paid and knowing what the cost of service calls are, any more, I find your comment very interesting.

EVen reading the rambling post by 238er, I can see that it provides that if the district can show that it's revenue input went up or down, for whatever reason, they can adjust the levy to compensate. THAT is exactly what I'm talking about. I totally disagree with someone having the ability to put their hands in my pocket whenever they want.
Of course, I can also see that it DOES talk about revenue income INCREASING, and the district being able to adjust the levy DOWN to compensate. Does ANYONE actually believe that would ever happen? Nope...not me.

Pops, I didn't ramble the legislature did. Actually the Board has done exactly that in the past.

dilly, read my post, I said cheaper in the long run. Often I have seen in house fixes that are not worthwhile. Just drive down Gene Field Road in front of Boehringer. City did that in house. It was cheaper and a poor job.

Apple,
Would you mind elaborating on the last time you ever saw the district, or any other government entity, lower the taxes because revenues are UP? Bet it's never happened in either of our lifetimes.

238er,
Sorry...I really didn't intend to indicate YOU ramble....but you're right...the state legislature does tend to go on....and on....and on....and on....

apple, why do you continue to make the most disparaging comments about this community? it is so tiring.

you are always so eager to drag out my negative comment, and here you are again with your negative nellie down with joe town pool is shallow mantra.

i dare you to say something positive.

that is perfect. thank you.

I say "Amen" to the comment on the low salaries. I also agree that the fact that there are fewer higher paying jobs here has forced or encouraged many of our high school and college graduates to leave. I have always felt that, for many people, the tendency of this town to pay lower salaries has made a vicious circle of: if you are not paid much, you work to the level you are paid. Regarding the comment about not having the "guts" to express your opinion to your employer: most people want to stay hired. They may have a family, they do have bills and you have to trust that an employer will not be vindictive to you before you take the risk of asking questions. In the meantime, if you feel you are underpaid, you don't necessarily want to vote for any community improvements, because that will just take more money out of your pocket and you will have to do without something else. Sometimes, city leaders and employers need to step up and provide the key to which the city can advance: They need pay people a living wage.

Question for Apple: Just curious, Apple. Have you ever had occasion to sit down and talk to many school district employees away from school? And I don't mean those in the main office. What is the attitude (toward the school district) of the average employee you have spoke with? I still maintain that if the school employees and at least 60% of parents would have supported the last 2 issues, both would have passed. I will be awaiting your reply.

i am told that the school board has to have a levy hearing Every August to set the levy. They can raise the levy by up to 5 cents at that time.

what i don't know is whether the levy can be raised every august? it is tied to fiscal performance of the district, so theoretically in this economy the levy could be raised each year?

pops, i retract my criticism. reading the lengthy post of statute by 238 makes my eyes bleed. ;0)

Apple, I am still waiting for an answer. Have you ever talked to a school district employee, not in the main office, ever? It seems to me that if you are a patron of the district, you SURELY would have talked to somebody in a, of course, non threatening manner.

Pops, I think adding a clause into a permenant levy that clearly states an increase must be approved by the voters is not a bad idea. It would make clear. I find it interesting that most of those forum bloggers back in the winter and spring during the campaign who were yes/yes continually for the intiative and adminantly against a sunset clause and were literally tearing the sunset clause levy apart are not even participating in this. Where are you people? Why are you not defending your original position on this? You very clearly stated a permenant levy was what was need along with the district to operate effectively. So why are we not arguing it again and why are we allowing a community Task Force to pursue the sunset intiative without challenging it? In my view this is the difference I see from earlier in the year, very little enthusiam this time around. And in my opinion it is resulting from a majority group of people including the district and board who truly believe the permenant levy is the way to go, but instead of arguing it again and pursuing more buy in this time from the public by engaging the community in a different approach to support the case, the original position is not defended and we go into crisis mode just to try and salvage a percieved "doom and gloom" financial disaster within the district. In my view, that is the wrong approach. If the district truly needs the levy to operate and manage the day to day business, then it needs to defend its ground and continue to argue for passage of a permenant levy. This continual day to day management of the business with a sunset clause levy decade after decade has in my view hurt the district, its growth, and its long range planning. Sunset clause is temporary, that is what it was and how can you substain day to day operations with a temporary levy continually if you know it needs to be permenant? I am very disappointed the yes/yes supporters back then are not defending thier original position on this now. I stand my ground, we either need it or we don't. And that is what I have high respect for Apple and Pops, even if I do not totally agree with their positions, they have stood their ground and defended their postions.

maybe they were all on the TASK FORCE.

each city can raise its levy every fiscal year by up to 5% not 5 cents, of its current levy without voter approval every year the state of missouri mandates that it be reviewed and raised accordingly but there are no provisions to lower it.

Wow!! Not one response from any yes/yes forum blogger.
Pops, for the record, I never insinuated those that want the sunset clause were against children, You and Apple have always held to your convictions from day one and I respect the fact both of you adimantly defend what you believe in without caving. I am upset with all those who were for the permenant levy bond issue and no are no longer defending their position. Those people literally "trashed" and heavily "critized" those who disagreed with them, continually violated forum rules which the moderators allowed, and now they are not even defending what they believed in. Even the editor of the NP stated he was glad there was finally a "fight". They just validated my argument in my view.

The way I see it about salaries in the district...if someone goes into teaching, they usually don't expect to make big money. Many of the people that I've worked with enjoy the feeling they get when they help a student succeed. Of course, those working in administrative positions are there for "the kiddos' as well as the big bucks they bring in. I haven't seen anyone in the main office willing to cut their wages to help the district. As a matter of fact, there are people who work downtown who live outside the city limits because they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want to send their children to school in our district. This has been brought up to the Superintendant, but she obviously doesn't care. I would expect the upper crust to live in and support our city and district. I remember when there were three years that we didn't get raises back in the early 90's, but the way you have to look at it -- especially in today's economy -- it's better to have a job with no wage increase than to be without one! The people who have the best seats with the SJSD are the one's who have or had family members in administration. They will always get jobs, and promotions. "We take care of our own."

Twothreeeighter, Apple, commenting in another article, told me that he/she thought the school district had done a good job answering every question (from taxpayers). I gave him/her some questions I might want to have answered by the district. What questions would you ask the district if you could? Do you feel there any open lines between you and the downtown administration? What recommendations would you make for them to get a levy issue passed?

sorry its 3% without voter approval that fact came straight from the state of missouri department of education! so yes it is true

Yep...it's only a difference of about $10 on a house of $50000 assessed value....if I calculated it correctly. That's not much, but if they do it THIS year, and again NEXT year...and the next year, and the next, and the next, etc, etc.....
That 3% increase could be an annual affair, without any intervention by the taxpayers. Wouldn't it be nice if all of us workers could, without our employers approval, just take a 3% pay increase? Although some folks get that....and maybe more, there's lots of workers that get much less, if any, annual raise.
I'm not against funding the district properly, but I am NOT for allowing anyone, including the school district, to have their hands in my pocket without my being able to have some control of my own money.

ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY EXCELLENCE OPEN MEETING

ACE is a community advocacy group which is interested in promoting further discussion on the proposed November ballot initiative of a renewal of the $0.63 Levy with a five year Sunset. We are hosting an open forum on Tuesday, July 7 at the Paper Lofts ( Mead Building ). In the interest of offering open access to everyone we are having two meetings in order to accommodate those who have difficulty in attending the traditional time slots! Please join us at either the 10-11 AM gathering, or at 6-7 PM. This is a simple effort to gather information, to offer the chance to sign a petition to pospone the date of the election , and to have citizens express themselves by placing their suggestions in a box, or to talk amongst themselves. All are welcome. The Paper Lofts has generously given us the use of their public rooms on the ground floor. The Lofts are at 1300 S. 11th Street, phone number 749 4234.

ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY EXCELLENCE OPEN MEETING

ACE is a community advocacy group which is interested in promoting further discussion on the proposed November ballot initiative of a renewal of the $0.63 Levy with a five year Sunset. We are hosting an open forum on Tuesday, July 7 at the Paper Lofts ( Mead Building ). In the interest of offering open access to everyone we are having two meetings in order to accommodate those who have difficulty in attending the traditional time slots! Please join us at either the 10-11 AM gathering, or at 6-7 PM. This is a simple effort to gather information, to offer the chance to sign a petition to pospone the date of the election , and to have citizens express themselves by placing their suggestions in a box, or to talk amongst themselves. All are welcome. The Paper Lofts has generously given us the use of their public rooms on the ground floor. The Lofts are at 1300 S. 11th Street, phone number 749 4234.

arg.....postpone

I happen to have attended task force meetings and am in general, against the levy with a sunset clause, however, being a realist I understand that the trust between the School Admin and Board and the citizens needs to be repaired. What our plan really says is that we need to keep the lights on and our salaries for our teachers progressing while we build a long range plan to make our schools world class. The five years with a sunset clause gives the community the time to develop the plan and come to the voters with a transparent plan that brings our schools up to the standard we all want, along with a tax levy that will fund this plan. If this concept is executed well in five years we will pass a permament levy that is thought out and will fully fund what we need.

Apple, you still sound like a "homie" for the school district. You sound like you know too much to just be a concerned parent. When you talk of the new buildings, I can understand a parent feeling as you do. However, if you are a parent, not enough of your peers voted with you. Your entry of June 30 at 4:05 is just not the normal language of average parents. Why is your spelling and expressive language better on some days than others? Are you more than one person, Apple? Finally, if you are a parent and you talk to other parents, you need to find out why they didn't support the school issues the last time. Ask if they will support it this next time, sunset or no sunset? Open up a dialogue. Listen to what they say. Apple, what I believe you need is to gain a fully, well rounded view of this topic that you are so passionate about. You spend so much time defending the administration, that it keeps you from gaining further insights into the whole picture. Learning is what education is all about.

My error, Apple, the time on your comment was 3:54. Sorry Heritage. Looked at the wrong time.

diligent. it has been obvious for some time that apple fakes her poor grammar and spelling errors. she is clearly well-informed, and is very familiar with the athletic programs.

b ozz, really glad to see someone else from the task force come and comment.

our group is fully aware of the rift with the public. we want to facilitate the healing process and create an open discussion. from the numbers shown in the last BOE meeting it is clear that while the district will begin to experience economic stress in two years, it is not imperative to have the initiative introduced in the november election.

what was the reasoning behind the november election when the money from the possible passage of the levy will not be available to the budget until next tax year? there is no immediate threat to the economic stability of the district. why not have the election include discussion from candidates for the two newly opening spots on the BOE? wouldn't the results of the BOE election be a bellweather for the future of tax issues? certainly the dialog would be much more broad based and representative of the population at large?

do the prospective candidates not want to have a litmus test involved in their elections? what about the council? even though i absolutely believe that the city council and the BOE are two completely seperate entities, many people called on the council to take a stand on the bond/levy. shouldn't the voters have the opportunity to make calls to prospective officials to get their feelings on the issues?

i know that we can do better than this. i see a brighter and more complete examination of the issues, and a literal door to door movement to reach out to the entire city. i believe that the communities of midtown, southside and the northend feel impotent, and with that feeling of helplessness comes embitterment. perhaps empowering those neighborhoods might somehow threaten more affluent areas?

i really hope that the district takes a deep breath and doesn't buy the black cloud theory. more dire predictions and corporate money thrown at the district will not heal the widening gap of discontent. both "sides" are looking at this gap with completely different perceptions of the middle ground. remember that EACH side is emboldened by the small margin of defeat. those who supported the yes/yes side see that they lost by the narrowest of margins. they look at this and think......"if only ?". otoh, the people who stayed home but privately wanted to vote NO/NO will be much more likely to come out and vote, encouraged by the slim "win" and wanting to see the same result. in psychology that is a dangerous game called brinksmanship.

what you will get is a wider than ever gap, one which won't just need a band aid, but major surgery. in the meantime we still are reading editorial comments like ....."if you really care about the children". that just isn't going to wash.

The reasoning behind a November vote is because April may see, according to Mike Hirter, several tax items on the ballot from the city and we did not want to put a levy that was voted down on a ballot with these other tax increase items. Also, it will be important to have the levy before the contracts for our teachers need to be completed to make sure we do not lose any quality educators because of lack of funds for pay increases.

This levy is not about caring or not caring about the children. This levy is about advancing our community to make cetain that all our children do not have to leave after we pay to eductate them to find quality jobs. The return on the investment we get when paying for education is that we have productive citizens that produce income for our community.

Boz, question for you. Did the task force consider what type of message you will be sending when you are now asking for a temporary operating levy even though the district argued in the last election that it could not operate effectively with a temporary operating levy? Won't you loose any credibility in the future if you ever want to ask for a permanent levy? Seems to me you might be winning the battle only to loose the war.

boz, i can't speak to what mr. hirter may have said, but i am told that the council has not instructed the city to begin any tax initiative at this time.

what you are saying sounds dangerously like manipulating the voting public, to me. just as i found it inappropriate for the most recent CIP to have been agressively campaigned for without making the looming sewer issue public, i find it a bit disingenuous to maneuver the public into voting for one tax over another by "positioning" it.

the levy has to stand on ITS OWN merit.

as to the issue of hiring teachers....... the district clearly showed that there is ample money to operate the district until the year 2012 without stress. that included, i assume, the hiring of teachers.

Apple, are you now supporting the levy in November with the sunset clause?

There is no manipulation going on. Mr. Hirter sat in a meeting and went through three of four tax items that he thinks will be hitting ballots in 2010.

The levy is only temporary because it will take time to educate this city on how important education is to the future of our community. I was a student in 1987 when the levy failed becasue of the ignorance of our voting public. Our school board and admin personnel have never been successful in getting our citizens to trust them or put a comprehensive plan in place to upgrade and replace schools. This problem has taken years and years to create and we are trying to give ourselves 5 years to undo some of the issues. It is people like you heritage that continually tear appart things instead of building the future that bring our city the shame it has. And beleive me we should be ashamed that our schools do not have an operating levy in place, we should be ashamed that our kids have facilities that are not even close to the other districts that my childern were fortunate enough to attend.

The tired old St. Joe excuse of "it was good enough for me" has to stop. The typical St. Joe resident has a lower education level than the national average, lower wage base than the national average - could it be, just could it be our education system needs an overhaul becasue "it was good enough for me" just isn't going to cut it for our kids and their futures.

Here is how our city compares to the average Missouri city:
St. Joseph compared to Missouri state average:

• Median husehold income below state average.
• Median house value below state average.
• House age above state average.
• Institutionalized population percentage above state average.
• Percentage of population with a bachelor's degree or higher below state average

We should be ashamed that our education system has created and will continue to create a below average popluation.

It was made very clear back in the Winter and early spring about the in effectiveness of a sunset clause levy. In my view, if the sunset clause is argued for, you just validated once again the permenant levy is not important enough to fight for. During the campaign, the sunset levy was "torn apart" by many of the very same people now on this task force. The task should have the confidence to argue for the permenant levy again, and I fail to understand why it does not. Did the Task Force actually problem solve this? This also in my view is inconsistent with what is now being touted as a 2020 vision in the Missouri political arena. A sunset clause limits this school district all the way till 2014 before another measure can be considered. That is way too long, by that time we should be promoting school bonds for new ones. There is no guarantee or true measurment the sunset clause will even pass and there is no validation yet any of these tax items will be hitting the ballot in April. I believe an organization who's own majority base does not support a sunset clause levy as an effective way to fund education should not be arguing for on, they should be arguing for what they really believe is best and have the confidence to do it. If it is a true statement the "the lights" need to be kept on by the levy than in my view that supports a permenant need for the levy and it should be permenant and argued for. Making that statement and then arguing for a temporary fix is counter productive.

John, we are not being counter productive by trying to get this levy with a sunset clause back on the ballot. The plan is to get a permenant levy. All of you who say you will not back a levy with a sunset clause need to understand our group's overall mission is to get a permenant levy for our schools. What we understand is that all the data shows that a permanent levy WILL NOT PASS at this time. So, we give our schools their operating funds and then execute a plan to educate the public why we need a permenant levy and what we will do with the money. At that point we put it on the ballot the way it should be and it passes. If you want a permanent levy, by supporting this groups idea, you are supporting taking the first step to securing our schools future and giving them a permenant levy. If any of you know how to get a permanent levy passed without going through this process please stand up and be heard, go to the paper, go to KQ2 let your ideas be heard beyond these posts.

i want to make it absolutely cear that i am not saying that dep. mayor hirter is or has in any way tried to manipulate the vote.

boz, there is a vast differnce between the first answer you gave on the city plans for tax initiatives in the second. glad you clarified that.

i want you to carefuly re-read your posts and see the language. words like "ignorance", "ashamed" excuse" and calling the population "below average" just aren't exactly going to resonate with the citizenry.

take a positive message forward with a viable plan to back it up. i will not sell the voters , citizens, or children short.

Apple and Boz. In my view you both have it all wrong.

Unfortunately, Boz, your posts shows the common perception that the task force has of people in this town. I quote: "the levy failed because of the ignorance of our voting public" and that typical St. Joe excuse is: "it was good enough for me". This is why most people don't believe the rhetoric coming from your camp. I would suggest that the task force actually head on out into the general population and talk to the average person in this community.

Apple, following your logic, if you vote no on the levy in November just because it has the sunset clause - does this mean you are NOW against children and those who vote in favor are FOR the children? Or is it the other way around? I can't keep up. Or is it simply that if we don't agree with you, well then, we must be against the kids?

Most people in this community aren't against taxes, they do want BETTER for their children than what they have now, most people are sick of the status quo. The 63 cent levy with the sunset clause gives us the status quo. Most of us are saying, that is not good enough and we are sick of settling!

In 1987 it was ignorance of the voter - ingnorance is defined as not having the information which the voter in 1987 did not have, when they got the information the voter passed an all be it adjusted levy.

I am not calling the citizens of St. Joe below average, that data proves we are below average in every category I put in my post, this data can be found on city-data.com. I want to change those stats and the only way we can is through education.

I will say I am ahamed because I am ashamed and I think we all should be ashamed.

I will say that the same old excuse is "it was good enough for me" because I have read it in the paper and heard if from groups multiple times.

None of what I have said is rhetoric I am only stating things I have heard and read in the paper. We need to get the chip off our shoulder and take a honest look at our community.

I am not speaking as a representative of the committee, I can't voice their united opinion becasue I dont think there is not a united opinion.

or...... we could present a reasoned campaign, unite the city and give every person a voice?

boz...... what data? has a survey been done? i missed that.......

Apple, you can have whatever opinion you wish, regarding those of us who opposed the permanent levy. We had, and still do have, our reasons for doing so. You've indicated over and over you have doubts about the education level of people in this town, because they voted "NO". If, in your mind, my "NO" vote is an indication of my lack of education, that's fine. Without trying to be mean, I'd say that the grammar, punctuation and spelling in your posts could easily be an indication of YOUR education level. Of course...I'm sure you'll consider this just a little "tuff love"....right?!

I never SAID I'd vote no....in fact, if your memory is working at ALL, you'll remember that I said I'd vote "YES" this time, if the sunset clause is left in. I ALSO said I'd even vote "YES" if they remove the sunset clause, but put VERY PLAIN LANGUAGE in the new levy proposal (which isn't out yet, mind you) that would PROHIBIT ANY INCREASE without voter approval.

Don't know how I can be any clearer. While my position may differ from yours, apple, I hope you understand that I'm not anti-education or anti-children. I just have more of a commmunity priority rather than an educational one.

H - you have got to be kidding me. A survey? You missed that one? Demographic information is....finish the sentence

Pops - I respect you fiscal responsibility and in principle probably think our political ideals are similar, however, I dont think you can have a community priority without having an education priority. Education is to the community as sales is to a company - without sales there is no company and without education there is no community

Boz44, I disagree with the direction of the Task Force. If the mission is to get a permenant levy in place, in my view that is what should be argued for. The reasons being utilized for promotion of a sunset levy sound to me more like reasons for a permenant levy. I am fully aware of how the data is being interepeted by the Task Force and I also disagree with that. The data can be interpeted several different ways. During the campaign, there was data being thrown out there that supported the permenant levy would pass. There was such confidence in that, the most adimant supporters continually stated there will be no need for a backup plan because we are going to win. I never ever saw or read the plan was going to be arguing for a sunset clause if the vote went south. I read possible scenarios, but those involved re-districting, building closures, cut backs, nothing about arguing for a sunset clause. In my opinion, part of the reason it failed was simply due to some of the marketing tactics used.
For the record Boz44, my voice is being heard and there is alot of interest in what I have to say about this. I do not expect everyone I talk to to agree, but what I highly respect is time and invitations being made by others to hear me out. I am not going to repeat everything, my stand is very clear on my posts, I stand by everything I have to say, and I put my name to it. The bottom line in my view is simple, the district needs a permenant levy to vastly improve things and operate effectively. The sunset clause was not effective and not the way most communities do business with regards to education. That was the argument back during the campaign. That is what the district stated they needed. We either need it or we don't and we should not compromise. The paradygm of a sunset clause needs to be broken now, not five years from now.

You can't have an education priority and ignore the community. While I agree that the levy was there, before, and won't tremendously impact the community if it were re-instated, I DO think that an open-ended, permanent levy takes the control away from the people....and regarless what apple, or anyone else says, the people MUST still have control, ultimately. We have WAY too many situations ALREADY in which there are those with hands in our pockets, and there's little or nothing to be done about it. The local utilities, local government, state government, federal government, etc. Sure....maybe it's a small thing, but if there's a chance to maintain some control, I say, maintain that control. I fail to see how asking the school district to continue to be accountable for the funding the people give it is a bad thing. As long as the district contols its spending, is transparent in it's affairs, and efficient with OUR MONEY....I'm confident the taxpayers would continue the levy....indefinitely. The ONLY reason it failed this time is because the district was attempting to remove what little control we taxpayers still have, during a time when the people have little or no confidence in the district leadership. That levy would have passed...I'm confident...had the district left the sunset clause in. They'd have that funding RIGHT NOW....

It may only be that 1 percent, but we voters still have control. I have an idea....let's eliminate the IRS, and make our federal revenue generator a consumption tax, or federal sales tax, instead of an income tax. That way I still have control over what I spend, and therefore, how I'm taxed. Do the same with state and local taxes.

You could be right....had the district not been so greedy, and forced two tax issues on the same ballot, perhaps the levy would have passed, even without a sunset clause. We'll never know. In hard economic times, that was one of the dumbest, stupidest things the district leadership could have done. They were warned, too, not to do it. They ignored the warning, and see what happened. Once again, it's the arrogance of out-of-touch beaurecrats oblivious to the real world.

John - I don't argue that the district needs a permenant levy, they do, however, IT WILL NOT PASS with the current distrust of the district. How many of the 1400 effected students' family have you spoken to? Do you not see all of the YES votes that have changed to NO votes because of the districts latest actions? It doesnt matter if the district was justified in closing the schools and enforcing the transfer policy because the way the handled it and the fallout was terrible and cost them dearly with their "customer". We are fighting a war and to win a war you do not need to win every battle as long as your main objectives are met. You are right in everything you say but I know you are a sane voice speaking to the insane.

The number of people to blame that got us to this point is a very long list. I hope to see a lot of you that post here run for School Board and I hope our community wakes up and begins to understand the education is not an expense to the community but an investment in the community.

boz....... you just made our point for waiting on the later election date. the BOE isn't as "united" as they appear, two new seats will be elected, and the voters have a chance to change the dynamics completely.

i don't believe a single voter said "NO" because they don't value education, or don't understand the investment issue.

the november election date is a fatal error. there is absolutely no advantage to it. wait for the new members to be elected and then move forward with the levy process without a sunset.

you might be very surprised how many of the 1400 student's family members ACE has had contact with.

honestly, i hope you will come to the meeting at the mitchell park plaza on july 7 10-11 and 6-7. we might not get as many citizens as we would like with the short time the task force and the BOE are giving us, but we will be out at he mustang game friday, the 4th at heritage park , and walking neighborhoods. kq2 has agreed to help get the word out.

i read a lot of frustration in your comments which was also present in the last campaign. the language is just as important the message. additionally, it is vital to have more transparency. i am sarah hochschwender, pleased to meet you.

http://www.stjoenews.net/news/2009/jul/02/jobless-rate-hits-26-year-high/

and in today's paper another reason to NOT have the proposal in november........

Did I hear that next year, a lot of employees will be working a full year, without the normal time off?

How much is this raising our costs and is it really needed?

Hi Apple, In reading your comments, I think you attended too many sports functions. You're very quick to use black and white, with a touch of, "win at all cost," mentality. Winning an election requires a subtle approach, not a hit-you-over-the-head approach. I'm also having trouble figuring out why you think this administration is so excellent. At a time when the economy was going down the tubes, they tried to pass two revenue issues. Evidently they had four schools that failed to meet Average Yearly Progress [AYP], so there goes the argument about how much better this group is than the previous administration. Apple, just what is their expertise? It may not be in academics. They definately have a public relations problem. Where is their level of expertise? Do they line the football field, well? Do they blow up basketballs better than everyone else? What is it? I heard some of their presentations. They basically had your attitude of, "I know what's best for you, and I darned well expect you to do it." I felt they spoke AT me, not necessarily TO or WITH me. I was neither impressed nor persuaded. I'll guarantee you that PRESENTATION was NOT their area of expertise. Bullying is easy, Apple. It's what people do when they don't have the skills or knowledge to do something the right way. If this is how they treat people they want to impress or receive help from, what on earth must they do to their own employees? And for the record, I voted FOR the levy. I still want to know what their area of expertise is.

Boz44, I have engaged with many different people throughout the community on this issue as well as others not even related to schools. I continue to do so just about every day. My perspective is different from yours and the Task Force and I am making sure a different opinion on the matter is being heard, regardless of the outcome in a couple of weeks. The concerns of those most affected by the recent decisions are in my view more validation of why this should wait and then come back on the ballot next year as a permenant levy. Dillygent1 makes a very good argument about the PR problem. The wheel does not need to be re-invented. Work on the PR and communication issue and the buy in for a permenant levy will increase. There are also other factors I evaluate. Enthusiam is a big one. I don't see it. This past November and December, scores of supporters began making their voice heard. Along with organizations, businesses, community leaders, professional people, etc. Many of them actually put their name to it. Where is all that now? 2 weeks before the board decides, where is everyone? I see no one putting their names to it this time around with the exception of Tama. Several of us who have differing views have put our names to it. All those who literally "trashed" the sunset clause back then are now going to support it but do not have the confidence to put their name to it? Everyone was so vocal about this back then, especially on the forum. Now its very little. I believe we need to support and defend what education in this city truly needs and fight for it. Even the NP wrote an editorial piece about "a fight." That article also mentioned something about it should have been fought for long ago. Well lets stand our ground and do what we believe in without backing down. sunset clause is not good enough. If a levy is continually going to be needed to support good educational services here, then we should settle for nothing less and fight for what we truly believe in. For the record Boz44 I highly respect the fact you came on to defend your viewpoint with this.
Some thoughts, this continual "bashing" of the community on this forum is in my view only going to continue to alienate those who will decide with their vote on any levy. That is one element that needs to change and a much more respectful tone needs to develop. If we do not learn to engage the community as a whole, respect everyone who lives here and communicate well, there will always be a struggle on anything needed to move for progression. Less "bashing" more thought on effective communication and we won't need 5 years to figure out how to get buy-in.
Lastly, Apple on a previous comment you stated my posts bother you, why?

apple, your last paragraph is EXACTLY why the BOE election should happen before any movement on the re-introduction of a levy should take place. the candidates for BOE should have to make their positions absolutely clear to the voters and be Held Accountable.

http://web.sjsd.k12.mo.us/District/DistrictBoard.asp

everyone should contact the members of the BOE and let them know that the November date is simply not acceptable. they cannot hide behind the fait accompli of a levy which even the letter to the editor today states clearly their own hand picked task force thinks is WRONG.

the BOE is much more divided on this issue than the public is lead to believe. this is the chance for the voters to change the make up of the board...... we have to stand and take back the status quo.

call and demand a BOE election before a levy.

Okay Ap, Evidently you didn't play baseball. I am to assume, by your post, that you are referring to the "Smith Doctrine." Yes, the BOE (Board of Education) does indeed set policy that the district administration recommends. What you should be concerned about is that the BOE (Board of Education) didn't have enough faith in the "Smith Doctrine," to listen to her. Okay Ap, it's 4th and goal on the 5 yard line. We are down to the last seconds of the second half and your team is down 6 points. You need to score to tie the game and go for the extra point. Your quarterback, Dr. Smith, fumbles the pass from center. Do you understand now?

........ or diligent, the BOE in closed door session sits down with smith. smith tells the BOE that she is going to "beg them" not to put the bond on with the levy. the BOE dramatically announces that they have Great Respect for the voters and has No Choice but to place the issue before the voters, and then carefully proceeds to target the voters who they think they can count on to ram the poorly crafted bond through with.

Ms. Watson has stated that they backed smith largely on the basis of her willingness to push for new schools no matter what. her job is totally on the line. smith is the definition of the peter principal.

i believe that at least three of the members of the BOE are not in lockstep on these issues. two more votes will turn the tables.

Heritage, I do respect you and your comments, but I really think they better come back in November with the levy, only. We are going to see a l0% reduction in our property taxes. When we see that reduced bill, are we going to like or dislike what we see? By waiting until the new year, the district/board is running on a gamble that people will support them inspite of their joy and relief at seeing lower property taxes. These same people have to pay for the care of themselves and their families. They have to pay for various city issues, sewer taxes, rising utilities, income tax and whatever unknown hardships are out there awaiting them. I understand the no-sunset, mainly because any business wants as much reserves available, so they can keep their business afloat. I just don't like the "my way or the highway" approach of some of the proponents. That's not how you persuade anybody. That's not how you make people feel good about losing what they have worked hard for. "Ap" made a comment about how stupid it would be to hire a PR (Public Relations) person. How much worse is that than creating another administrative position at a time when they have let teachers go. Our district/board did do that, you know. Another thing to consider is this: The employees of any entity ARE Public Relations representatives. If they are happy, they create a positive attitude toward their employer. If they are unhappy, they create a negative attitude toward their employer. This district is blessed with a very large force of potentially happy and positive representatives. Maybe they need to consider that. It's much easier to hire that 40,000 dollar/year PR guy, than to work at building a positive work force. I wonder which would be more effective in the long run. I think I know the answer. There is an old saying: You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Personally, it is you who do not understand much about the value of civility in the work place. You don't even seem to understand the value of civility on line. You really seem to think that power is absolute, that you have it because it was given to you. The power to win an election comes from respect and trust. Actually, you have not made me mad at all, because I really think that you lack understanding of the total picture. Yes, you were right relating to the dictionary, but so what? Sad to say, you are right in some things but your basic approach will turn off a great many people, people you need to vote for your cause. In your fit about my comments, did you actually read that I voted for the last levy election? If I thought you were from the distriot, which I am not sure whether you are or not, you would probably turn me off to vote for it. If they know who you are, it would be wise of them to tell you to stick to facts and not editorialize. By the way, Colgan was not there for the entire 39 years. About the rocket ship, you first.

I believe there is alot of people on here under pseudo names that in the real world are highly visible and professional people and in general some of the comments they make here would not fly in whatever course of business they work in day to day. This is an outlet.

john, any person has a private right to use a screen name. people who have public positions which require the public trust are outside the boundaries of acceptability when they are defamatory or attempt to sway public opinion from behind that anonymity.

Ap, You are the problem, because in taking up the district flag, YOU ARE the speaker for the school district. Anybody who reads these comments that YOU make, WILL remember them, when they go into the booth. When a person goes into the voting booth, they remember any perceived slights, any perceived mistreatments, or any rude comments made to them by individuals representing the institution they are voting for. You can disclaim the school district all you want to, in the name of "honesty" and "telling it like it is," but like it or not, Ap, YOU ARE THE ST. JOSEPH SCHOOL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE, in these comments. Relating to your very last comment, remember that Ralph Cramden was a redneck bus driver with an attitude, in New York. Alice was the voice of reason :)

If you knew the truth, I'd give it credibility. As I said in one of the posts, you do make some valid points. It's basically your demeanor. I find it interesting that you refer to the district and its employees, because when you talk to some of the district employees, as I have been doing lately, in order to gain their perspective, you will find that they refer to the "bullying" of the downtown office, in much the same way that you are trying to bully everyone here in this comment section. You are either an administrator or a want-to-be administrator, because you are using the same tactics here as they are accused of using. Side note: I'm betting Dr. Smith does not have the same skill as Dr. Colgan in persuading the public to pass revenue issues. He understood the political arena. The people there now, and you, do not.

Ap, First off, Colgan did have a long range plan for Neely. Knowing how you check everything, check to see that the new addition, which was built onto Neely, was to be able to stand after imploding the old building. It was going to be used for a daycare situation. That was his long range plan for Neely.If you remember, there was a lot of talk in the neighborhood about Neely and potentially St. Pat's, closing. Colgan, at the time, made a statement about trying to keep Neely open, if the neighborhood would work on progress. There is a nice little park that sits to the south of Neely, that coincided with these comments. The young people of the neighborhood helped create that. The neighborhood began a spruce-up at the time this was going on. They took him at his word. You still don't comprehend persuasion. I have a real problem with arrogance, whether it comes from the school district, the city, the county, or you. Actually, I don't have an agenda. I just want discussion and more perspective. I will continue to answer you as you address me. If you don't want me to answer you, just don't talk to me.

To respond to Boz44 you are correct there has been alot of the yes votes that have turned into no votes at this point because of the school closings and the transfer policies and the uprooting of 1400 school children.And the districts board and adminstration has not been willing to listen to us parents and have had this shove it down our throat attitudes toward us and this is the way it is going to be and there is nothing else to talk about. Also when you try to call and talk to Melody Smith she will never take your call or even return your calls as well as the rest of the administration. I personally will vote for the 63 cent levy when ever it is back on the ballot, but I will be damned if I will be bullied around by these people in this school administration and have them tell what to do with my children and have them uproot my kids and mess up their education and learning process and their emotional well being as well from being uprooted.You mark my words come August when school starts back up how much mass confusion there will be as well how our children in our community will suffer with the grades. I refuse to listen to the district lame excuses for doing this to our children these 2 school could have remained open and operated with the surplus they have on hand and before the surplus ran out they would have a new levy revenue coming in.This is a very sore suject with I am sure with several parents.Also Neely if it would have been kept uo in maintenance it would be in better shape than what they say it is and it is not like they did not have the money to keep it up.

Apple, in regard to one of your earlier posts, I believe the district does have a PR department. That essentially is Steve Huff's job. His bckground is in PR and newspapers, not education. It's not a $40,000 position, but rather a $100,000 one.

There shouldn't really be that much confusion when the kids go back to school. The district's website features a district map, so you can easily see where to enroll your kids. Pretty simple really.

In response to apple I really do not care if you do work for the district or not, I would love it if you did because you could take all of these post back to them, but I am sure they do not want to see what the public thinks of them today.
I would have to disagree with you about the population in the Neely district,They just opened the new apartments in the old Mead building,there still is more than enough children to attend this school and yes it needed to remain open as well as Webster. As for the cost to maintain this school if it is in that bad of shape than that means the maintenance was not kept up on it correctly. The building is like anything you own if you take care of it no matter how old it is it will be in good shape, so if the maintenance had been kept up correctly than regular maintenance should cost no more than the other schools.Sure boiler and other utilities were old but and I mean but they should have been changed out several years ago and not let get that old. I also remember seeing a news clip of Hall I believe where a ceiling tile was wet and stained and they said they had to change it weekly ,it seams to me that maintenance in the district is weak if you had to change a ceiling tile out in you house weekly would you not find the reason and fix the main problem? There are several different views on several different issues within the community and nobody is wrong for believing what they believe but there was several different ways the district could have went and not acted so harshly and quickly.You must not have any children in elementary school because if you did I think with 1400 children getting moved around you would have had a child effected by this and you probably would have a different view on things than you do.

Ap, So nice to hear from you again. First off, I want children to be able to go to healthy and safe schools. I have said that many times before. Secondly, if Neely has a mold problem that can't be fixed, close it. Same for Hall. Another comment, from a Skaith patron, was that Skaith has a mold problem. I want it fixed now. Personally, if Huff receives l00,000 a year for PR, I suggest they fire him and hire YOU. Let's face it, You supposedly know all the issues and have all the answers. I think the thing that bothers me the most about your post is that I always thought that Colgan, being a native, understood the neighborhoods of St. Joseph, better than you. He was trying to work with the community by doing what he could to build that particular neighborhood up. This east side school, you talk about--while I agree it is important, a smaller popoulation surrounds it, than surrounds Neely. This new building is being proposed on FUTURE growth, which may or may not happen. Look at our population figures over the last l0 years. By the way, Ap, it is sixty-three cent,not sixty-three hundredths cent.

Apple, you going to answer my question or ignore it? I really want to know why my posts bother you.

I was looking at the school district website for 2008-09 Board minutes. The newest I could find were Oct l3, 2008. Have they quit displaying newer minutes or have they taken 2008-09 minutes out? I would like to be able to refer to more current minutes. Does anybody know anything about this?

In response to Orliandor there will confusion because 1400 children will be going to different school that they are not used to going to and do not know the staff and ect, ect. No it should not be confusing for the parent but more along the lines for the children.

John, she's talking at me. Ap, when you use the decimal point, it is unnecessary to write "cent" after it. As for the other comment, it still takes one to know one.

Dillgent1, I was referring to a previous post a couple weeks back where she had stated this.

Apple, from one of your posts from the "Levy may be placed back on the Ballot" article. Maybe you forgot you stated that. I want to know what bothered you about my posts back then.

apple June 21, 2009 at 11:13 p.m.

Hearitage, bad form naming Sun idenity on this board. I truly hope you had permission to do that. It is post like that of Johncourter which bother me the most. I am to believe a SJSD would vote no on the levy? Am I to believe someone would be stupid enough to cast a vote which could lead to thier unemployment. Then just go on and throw false claims.

Apple,
Most people with children in school will vote yes for the .63 cent levy with or without the sunset claus(but most of the public wants the sunset claus) and if Neely remains closed or open back up, but it needs to open back up till the school in the area that was going to be built in that area of town is built and there is a need for a school to the east as well.On another note how do we know no children are living in the apartments in the old Mead building? Do they not allow children?

Ap, First, quote me correctly, I said, "a smaller population". I did not refer to any "portion." Since I have been reading your posts, I have learned that Smith is really a doctrine, not a doctor. I have learned that a smaller portion, not a population, is around a school. It's a sixty-three hundredths cent levy. By the way, Ap, a sixty-three hundredth's levy would pass right away without a sunset. Ap, if you bothered to read my posts more carefully, I have said I voted for the last levy. By insulting me, and being the fine [official or unofficial] school district representative that I consider you to be, I may have to think that over. As I am open to learning, I will decide how I will vote when it is time to vote. There's more information and insight to be gained, at this point. It's too early to decide. I just hope you aren't on the campaign committee.

i just have to say that i am enjoying this immensely.

dilly come to our meeting. you will see a lot more information. also, when you request documents from the district you have to say
"i am requesting an engineer's report which shows that the water problem at ------- school can not be abated, AS PER CHAPTER 610". this enacts a stipulation which requires the district to provide you with that information or show that they do not have it within 3 business days. ( as per dwight scroggins, PA)

apple you absolutely crack me up. you know perfectly well that i opposed the bond on the basis of NO, repeat NO academic backing for building two schools which were he exact same size in two completely different neighborhoods. neely happens to be the right size. also, there are brand new numbers from the premliminary data on the census which completely reverse the district's predictions as to the population shift ( just as I PREDICTED)

Ap, I can't help that you have trouble spelling and using grammar. As far as your comments, it gives me a chance to reply. You're a fun playmate on line. I don't care whether Neely is open or not, but I do think the neighborhood people, who care deeply, should be treated fairly and respectfully, which has been a theme of all my postings. My "thing" has also been that I want children to attend schools that are healthy and safe. Those schools are ALL schools, not just Neely. In my post, I was also referring to the fact that the area around the proposed new school building, was a more sparsely populated neighborhood than was Neely or Hall. I'm sorry you can't grasp that concept, but that is your problem, not mine. I do take the Palin comment as an insult. Frankly, I always thought you had kind of the same type of personality. Come to think of it, that's about the meanest thing you have said today. The answer about voting, WAS clearly answered. I am in the process of gathering information ,with which to make a reasonable, intelligent decision. That decision has not yet been made. The last I checked, the voting booth was a private affair and not something to take lightly. Look forward to your next comment. Happy Fourth of July to everyone. I'm gone for a while.

I have been in both Neely and Hall schools and it seams to me that Hall was in alot worse shape than Neely, but in reality they should have not closed any of these schools till new ones were built to take their place. Does anybody know if they had outside engineers come in and look at the oldest schools in the system and give them reports on their conditions and what it would take to keep them running and up to date and I mean someone for the outside not someone from St Joseph. This should have been done or did they just make these uneducated decisions on their own? It is the districts fault that these levys did not pass.We could go on and on about the school board and the administration but the bottom line is our children and how they have been treated in this whole mess.I think alot of you on here have forgot that this is about them and not us. These children are our future as well as our communities future. Have you people looked around no and I repeat no companies that are worth a darn are moving to St Joseph Mo. These companies look at things such as this our school system and see how messed up it is, as well as out state MAP testing scores for our schools. Also the more the community grows with companies and more people move here the more revenue the school district will have. I think it is time for the board and the administration to hold a meeting somewhere big enough for the parents of these student 1400 of them to voice their opinions and for them to listen to us and our concerns.Come on people come together for the right reasons and let the district know the things they have done are wrong and wrong for our children or stay on the side lines and just let them push us around. I went my entire school years in St Joseph schools and wanted my children to go to the same schools because of the low crime rate and good education we got a long time ago but our new leaders have taken that away and as I have said before they call themselfs educators and leaders. I call them the good ole boys club. The school my kids attended have lost 2/3rds of the school that will be going somewhere else next year come on 2/3rds and I am sure other schools are like this as well.Remember folks if the school they are sending you to and it is a title 1 school and the school has not met the require testing scores for 2 years they have to let you transfer to another school.And you can go onto the states web site and look at all of the schools in St Joseph scores, they should be published by August sometime and they are very clear on how to read them.

It's nice to hear your post for the young people. I agree with you that they have been forgotten and that they matter. Most of my posts have to do with dialogue and listening to people. I don't think this has been happening enough.

dillygent1,
I agree with you they should open up a dialog with the parents of St Joseph to listen to our concern and yes in all of this the main point has been forgotten and that is the children. But where do you go? Nobody up town wants to listen.The board will not listen as well. My responsiblities as a parent is to advocate for my children and this is what I will continue to do till I see change, the administration as well as the board will know my name by heart before it is all said and done, and this is what the rest of the parents of these uprooted displaced 1400 students parents should do as well make these peoples phones ring off of the hook and get their attention and make their jobs misreable when they are at work. The board members all have their phone number listed on the SJSD web page make them ring off of the hook people.Advocate for your childrens education.

This has gone way off base. There is too much focus on attacking one another and nothing is being accomplished.

If you believe a permenant levy is what is needed as the district stated it needed, then encourage the district and the public who supported it the first time to argue for it again and accept nothing less. If you believe another opinion on this is the best solution then do the same, but truly believe in it as the long term solution to the issue and stand by it.

Sunset clause does not accomplish anything. In my view, it will only hold us back anther 5 years if passed and as I stated before, the funds will not be used for its intended purposes, it will be used only when necessary and a very large portion of it if not all will be put into reserve because the outcome 5 years from now is uncertain. I personally will not accept another "crisis management" solution. Like any tax funded entity, the district will survive no matter what the outcome. State of CA is broke, but they are still conducting business, it has not ceased. Alot of tough decisions going on in order to accomplish that, but business is still continuing. If it takes a little longer to argue a for a permenant levy, then it does. Do it right this time and defend the permenant levy cause. We either need it or we don't. That is my premise, that is what I will continually argue.

Ap, my ex-playground buddy, school district home-person, All I've been doing is turning the tables on you. You questioned my character. In one of the other postings on school issues, I remember YOU asking Heritage to come out and play. Were YOU a dirty old woman for wanting HER to come out and play???? The fact that you don't understand what I'm trying to say is, again, your problem, not mine. Ap, how much has the population of St. Joe increased and where is it headed? For such slow growth as we have, the study that Heritage talks of, will be interesting, indeed. To John Courter, I think attitudes are going to be changed on the potential employment picture and the economy turn-around. If St. Joseph keeps losing jobs as it is doing now, a sunset clause may HAVE to be revisited, in the HOPES that in a few years, things will get better. A lot of people are hurting. It may be the best they can do.

diligent. watch out, soon people will be accusing you of being me!!!!! you wouldn't want to be in That Boat!!! LOL

Apple
You really do not make very many friend on here by saying that you are happy that the district took the steps to close Neely. If the district had taken care of their assets meaning their schools they would not be in this shape.Also there is more than enough children in the Neely district to keep this school open. What about Webster do you feel that was justified as well? And let me tell you the kids that they moved from Neely have affected schools as far away as Parkway and this school lost over half of their students to other schools. You are a idiot thinking this was a good move closing any school and disrupting 1400 childrens education. And do not vote for a levy with a sunset claus on it but if you would listen to the public this is the only darn way it is going to pass at this point. And for all of you who are against the sunset claus it would get the levy passed and it would allow the district 5 years to win the public support for a permant levy. And people like you are the reason our children are going to suffer.I have lived here all of my life and this is just BS that this crap is going on anyway.But if you want to argue with someone I will be happty to continue with you. I do not know who or what you are but it does seam as if you have a personal agenda with this topic. Our family will vote for the levy either way we just need to get it done open these schools back up and throw the pencil drawing of the redistricting out and build 2 new schools to take these children one to replace Neely and Hall and one out east. Also think about this , This issue is NOT ABOUT YOU OR ME OR ANYBODY ON HERE IS IT ABOUT OUR COMMUNITIES CHILDREN.

Ap, you did have children, didn't you? You should know it's a lot harder on a younger child to move than on a junior high or high school student to move. As far as the bold leadership you said was there, you tend to forget, they lost BOTH issues. They SHOULD shoulder the responsibility for that. MMl967, this effected more than Parkway. It effected every school in town and 1400 children, and even more parents. Also, as far as their bold leadership, remember, the first choice of the district,for a school in the north east, was not the Cook Road location, it was a Karnes location. They just couldn't convince the zoning commission to pass it. That just might be ineptitude or arrogance. The more I'm networking, the more I'm learning about circumstances and attitudes, and what I'm learning isn't pretty.

Apple
1. When you have a building that is getting old you make repairs and keep it up, I drove by Neely the other night it look better than Hall does.
2. When you have a building and it is 100 years old and you have a boiler and utilities that old you really should have changed it out way before it got that old.
3. As in a previous post of mine at Hall they had a ceiling tile that they said they had to replace weekly, if I had a tile I had to replace weekly I would find the root cause and make the repairs for this would not continue this is called weak maintenance.
Now with the school closings they could have remained open and continued to operate until a new levy was passed and these 2 new schools were built,32 million dollar surplus is a lot of money and it would have not ran out before a new levy was passed.
Also this redistricting of 1400 children taking children out of school where families bought their home because of the schools they wanted to send their children to attend not where the district tells us to send them, also as well as taking children from schools that have high MAP testing scores and moving them to schools with low testing scores, this for one tells me the teachers in the schools with low scores are not teaching and why would any parent want to send their children there?
This redistricting is going to be hard on the children I have children and they are already upset because they cannot return to their school and they have lost their friend they have went to school with for years as well as childrens grades will drop because of this.
Come August this will be confusion for all of these children that have been moved.
Closing 2 school with about 525 students have displaces 875 other children and this math does not add up. Transfers taken away but teachers living in other areas of town can take their children to the school they teach but the parents are told they will have no room at any of the schools. So how will they have room for the teacher children? How will there be any room for the children that have gotten moved to a title 1 school and have not met Map testing scores for 2 years and the family request a transfer and they have to grant it to them. And there are schools here is jepardy of this happening to them.
And when children get to the age they move from elementary school to middle school they are at that age where they are ready for growth, but small children do not understand.I am sure you got to attend the same school all of your school years before going to middle school and then onto high school and if not I am sorry for you.
As far as the sunset claus this is going to need to be on there to get a levy passed at this point.

dillygent1,
I agree it has affected all elementary schools in the system and all of these children.Apple seams to think it will not effect these children in no way,but it will emotionally, grades ect.I have already saw it in my own children.When children reach middle school age they are ready to move onto the next school,and it still is a big move for them to adjust to.
I personally think the district and the board acted to harshly and to quickly on all of the issues, closing schools, redistricting, transfers, ect.
32 million dollars is alot of surplus to have on hand.The district should have been looking for a long term plan before the old levy was set to expire and just maybe teated the public a little better than they have as well and we would not be in this position today. As I have stated before it is my responsibility to advocate for my children and to make sure thay have a good education. I have to speak for them because they are to young to speak up for themselfs.

apple,
I am glad you children turned out fine, and mine will as well they are straight A honor roll students and this has affected them as well as 1400 other St Joseph Children and just maybe they will be ok but it should have not gotten to this point in the first place.Studys have shown children that move around from school to school have a harder time than if they did not move from school to school.
Our family voted for both of the levys and will continue to vote for these levys in whatever fashion they are presented to us with or without the sunset claus, but I think you will find that the school year will be hard on these children and there will be issues and then you can eat some crow.

APPLE ,
You should have read my other post I said I have been in both schools as well(Neely and Hall) and Neely is in better shape of the 2, but in a other post Mr Reese posed a great question why not open back up Blair for the Neely and Hall students and Keep Webster open this would have not created such a mess as what the district has done. Sure they would have to move some items back into Blair but they have it in Neely and Hall and had all summer to get this completed before schools opens back up in August.This still would have allowed for 2 school closings and the savings from that, and would have gotten ride of 2 old buildings in bad shape and kept the CHILDREN together.But to keep Webster open as something else and Blair open as something else and continue maintenance on both building you could teach children in these buildings.Maybe this make to much sence for our district to understand or just maybe they do want to bully and punish the voters but that is not what they are doing they are punishing our CHILDREN 1400 OF THEM.

There is a school in St Joseph that would be a great example how the school comes together with administration and parents and gets the things they need for their children and alot of it is through donations thru local companys. They have built onto their building and expanded.This school is Bishop Leblond and alot of the money came from a contractor and the gentlement(Grace I believe) that used to own the casino here in St Joseph. Maybe this is also a concept for our local schools.Or maybe the district could take some lessions from this schools administration and learn a few things,such as how to treat the public and the children.

Hey Ap, Most of what you said is pretty accurate. However, I notice you didn't address the bullying issue. Do the private schools use bullying tactics to force people's will or do they use other methods, such as civility and good public relations in their attempts to move forward? Maybe those people with private school experience could answer that for us. We may be able to glean some helpful information from our private school neighbors, in order to benefit our public school system.
Ap, I believe donations made to the School District Foundation, ARE tax deductible . Maybe a good public relations person would encourage strong community giving. I like MM's ideas. I also support the letter she referred to,in regard to reopening Blair. Good ideas worth revisiting and discussing.

APPLE,
I see that you said nobody shows up for school board elections ,but I bet there is a huge turn out this time and every time till they all are replaced. We could learn a few things from our private school administartions and for 1 it would be good public relations. And yes we pay proplerty taxes and do we not have a surplus. And if it was 4 million to renovate Neely why was that not done this would have been alot cheaper than building a new school. Also please do not bring God into this he has nothing to do with this at all. I was just saying the private schools know how to raise money for what they need and spend it wisely and have a very nice school to show for it.And if Bode was the first Leblond they did something right they go a new school.

Apple ,
I also see you did not address the issue of opening back up Blair as a school does this make to much sence to you or does the cat have your tonge? This would allowed for Neely and Hall to be closed and most of the children to remain together in one school.I am truely sorry that Central raised all of that money and was not able to use it for their projects I went to Benton and I would have not cared a bit you all should have gotten to use it for what it was raised for. But since you did not where did you all use this money? Or did our district take it away from you all?

Apple as said before you have not read my post I voted for both of the levys we are not against building new schools but they needed to keep the old ones open till new ones were built. And if they opened back up Blair to use as a school just till they were able to build a new one to take Neely and Halls place.And nobody told you to go to church and feel guilty about not giving to the schools that is a opinion you created on your own.

No but opening up Webter and Blair when you are already doing maintenance on them and using them for schools would allow you to close 2 schools still and keep the children of these schools together and not move 1400 children around. Close Neely and Hall and open Blair and Webster back up, like I said maintenance and utilities are being paid on these building anyway. And if you opened Blair back up you could move the equiptment from Hall and Neely into Blair and they would of had all summer to perform this work.It is not like we are never going to get these new schools.But doing the above would have been so easy to doanybody with half of a managment back groung could have accomplished this task and saved all of the confusion and made parents and not to mention what they have done to our children.Apple I will give you credit for one thing you stand behind your beliefs as I do and I will continue to advocate for my children and the rest of the children.

mm1967-I've tried to keep quite on this issue, but thought I would jump in on the conversation. Obviously you haven't been to the old Blair school. I work there and there is NO WAY that the building could be transformed back into a working school over the summer. There is no kitchen, no gym, one set of restrooms (+ 2 unisex washrooms), and maybe 4-5 rooms that could be used as classrooms.

It would take at least 6 months and untold millions of dollars to get this building ready for 200+ kids running it's halls. This building hasn't been a school for decades, it was closed for a reason.

Another thing, where would all the staff and services (Coordinators, SJSD Computer Network, Computer techs, Data Management, etc) be housed?

Apple, I found your comment about the 10% interesting. I have often wondered just how much conversation that goes on about the 10% actually comes from the Bible and how much comes from the sermon? Perhaps the answer to this question is determined by how much guilt people feel. I do agree with the comment about Central's football field situation being unfortunate. It must have been disheartening to the students and other supporters. I am curious about just what does the school district foundation money go to? I really don't think it is for the tracks, lights, etc., but I am curious. Terrabatu, the point about looking at all options is it comes down to which is more important to use that building for, the children, for which it was intended, or for adult and technological usage? I understand that the school district has many buildings that do not house schools. Perhaps one of these could house the functions of Troester Media Center. I understand your discomfort with moving your workplace. I am sure that many teachers, students and parents can relate with you.

It is nice to here from someone who works in the building and what has been done with the building since it was closed as a school but Webster has not been gutted as of yet and it is a good working order school which could still be used as well as Neely could open back up and I do not want to hear we do not have the money because they do it is called 32 million dollar surplus use it that is what I want my part of the tax dollars to go for. Also they could leave Neely closed for the year and spend the 4 million renovating it and open it back up next year this would be cheaper than building a new school in this area and you could do the sme for Hall the following year, this is also a concept.It would not be so bad if the district would just still allow transfers within the district this would also solve some of the issues with the parents. If you looked at the old map there was not that many transfer in our city. I am not convinced that moving 1400 children was in the best interest of our communities children.The district was going to close schools and that is understandable but not before we had schools to replace them or renovated them for those students.Another issue I will not let go of is how the board and administration has treated us and I have been treat like crap first hand and know how they want to treat people.I have lost all confidence I had with the board and the administration and will vote to replace 2 board members at a time and advocate for the upper admin to be replaced.

And the end result of the district accomplishing what they wanted was treating the public unfair and uprooting 1400 children. I would still like to know what kind of State and Federal funding is avalible for the building of new schools I am sure there is some money for this.Renovate Neely this year and next renovate Hall this would be a lot cheaper and then you would only have to build one school to the east.The district is going to have to rehire staff at some point anyway and if each school cost 4 million to renovate they have the money at this point and it would show good faith on the districts part to the community and these 2 school would be good as new and I am sure the children would enjoy going back to their schools.This would be 8 million vers 40 or 50 million to build a new school.

mm1967, I know, for a fact, that Hall was "renovated" in the last major go-around. The district leadership, at that time, proclaimed Hall, and several other schools, "ready for the next century of education". I'm not sure how those schools went from being ready for the next century of education to being ready to fall down in just 5 or 6 short years.....

Apple, what all this boils down to is that you trust the district and the school board/executives...and I don't. The ONLY reason I wanted the sunset clause, or at least something to keep them from raising the tax rate later on, in the absence of a sunset clause, is that I don't trust them. They've been deceptive, evasive and opaque in almost every way for so long, the public trust has been lost. That's the reason the levy failed, in a nutshell. You may trust them completely...I do not. Trust is easily lost, and very difficult to earn back. It'll take awhile. For now, if the district wants/needs the funding, they should put the sunset back in, or, in some other way, go the extra mile to win back the trust of the citizens of St. Joe that currently have little faith in their school district leadership.
Obviously, I expect you to totally disagree....and do your best to blow holes in my post. Frankly, I no longer care. I know how I feel, personally, and I know enough of how many others who also voted "NO" feel to think that I'm right...regardless what you, or others, might say.

apple,just for information::If I remember my high school years right BODE was Christian Brothers ( ALL BOYS) High School. Not Bishop Le blond (ALL GIRLS ) school.

Our History - Cathedral of St.Joseph, MO... the construction of Christian Brothers High School (the present-day Bode Middle School). ... Bishop LeBlond High School stands as a memorial to the great work ... Cathedral of St. Joseph • 519 North 10th Street St. Joseph, MO 64501 ...
www.cathedralofstjoe.com/aboutus/history.html - Cached - Similar

Bishop LeBlond High School was established as an all girls school in 1960 by the Benedictine Sisters of Atchison, KS. It succeeded the Convent of the Sacred Heart when the Madames of the Sacred Heart withdrew from St. Joseph. It was named after Bishop Charles H. LeBlond, former Bishop of the diocese. [1] In 1970 it became coeducational when the all boys Christian Brothers High School closed.
Bishop LeBlond High School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaBishop LeBlond High School. Address. 3529 Frederick Avenue St. Joseph ... High School is a private, Roman Catholic high school in St. Joseph, Missouri. ... Bishop LeBlond High School was established as an all girls school in 1960 by the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_LeBlond_High_School - Cached - Similar

LeBlond was all girls and was built to replace Sacred Heart Convent (a real disaster to have lost that). Bode was Christian Brothers High School and was a great benefit to our community. The church screwed us bad in closing these two schools. CB was consolidated into LeBlond. I beleive this was about 1972.

apple as you know I am a parent of elementary school children and I could giveyou several times when the administration has lied to me or my family in some sort of way but by doing so it would give my identity away and at this point I want to remain mm1967, but I would not lie to you they talk out of both sides of their mouths at times and do not mean anything they say to you.They have yanked my chain more than once and will not do it again because I do not trust them and will not give them a chance again once was enough but 2 or 3 times never again replace them.We will always support our schools and our childrens education and all of the school by voting for the levys and we to have been hit by this economy and have lost 1 income but our children deserve the best as out communities children do but there needs to be change up town.

People will need to understand that a new board member who is not a "yes" person, had better have a pretty thick skin. Comments made by some past Board members have sometimes not been too complimentary about the way things have occasionally been done. There is an expectation that once you are on the board, you are on the "inside" and expected to go along and do as told, or at least this is what I have been told by past board members. It gets to be hard to stand up under that kind of pressure. These people will need a lot of support and encouragement from the rest of us.

First of all, apple, I work for a living, so I don't "camp out" on this discussion board. I participate when I have a chance. Your little, "still waiting for an answer from Pops" was uncalled for.

You made a couple of statements I found interesting. "They put away and saved money they did not need." Interesting you said that. That's ONE of the things I hold against them. They DID put away money they didn't need, and when this levy failed, SUDDENLY, they're claiming "poverty", closing schools, laying off employees, etc. Which is it? Did they not need that money, or DID they? If they've been putting money away they "didn't need" (your words...not mine), why all of the sudden is the loss of the levy such a tremendous loss? If they didn't need the money before, they didn't need the levy money. Period.

You also said something else....something I agree with. "When bonds were voted on they followed through with everthing they said they would do." This is a true statement...and one I readily admit. However, following spending that money to, as the district said, "bring the older schools into the 21st century", upgrading and updating them, NOW, they insist those SAME SCHOOLS are about to fall down, and need to be closed, and students relocated and moved. They spent MILLIONS on those schools, and are now planning to vacate them, tear them down, and basically wasting all that money. That's not efficient, no matter HOW you characterize it. Those millions were WASTED!!

"They operate with lower funding than most districts." This statement is debatable.

Have they ever raised your taxes without asking? Nope, but the sunset clause was basically the guarantee that wouldn't happen. Were they to have raised the levy amount without going to the voters, I GUARANTEE the next time they asked for the levy to be continued, it would fail!

Did the past levy ever go up? Redundant question...see above.

You ask:
Why do you distrust them? I already told you....they took the community's money and updated and upgraded buildings, and declared them "good", and NOW plan to scrap those same buildings. They either lied to us then, or they're lying now. Which is it? I don't know. Personally, since I've had kids attend Hall School before and after the updating and upgrading, I'd say that was a good building. Old? Yep...without a doubt. Seems to me there are buildings still in use today in Europe that are many hundreds of years old. Old isn't bad....unless it's in our American "throwaway" society.

Honestly, apple, I don't trust very many politicians/officials these days. I've been around long enough to know that it's not unusual to have elected folks be dishonest....and so far, with just the one or two things I've mentioned, the district leadership is showing it's not being totally honest and forthright.

I'm sorry if you read this, and disagree with my assessment. However, I know plenty of folks in St. Joe who agree with me, and who feel we've been sold a bill of goods in the past, and we're uncomfortable giving the district a "blank check" to sell us another bill of goods in the future.

Some, here in this forum, and you may have been one who said this, suggested I shouldn't blame the current district leadership for the "sins of the past". Sorry, but even though the current leadership may not have made those decisions in the past, they must understand that those actions created a feeling of distrust....something the current administration will have to live with, and deal with. So far, they've not demonstrated they understand that fact.

I never SAID the current administration has done ANYTHING really dishonest....although I think their "sky is falling" actions following the levy failing is, at the very least, disingenuious. However, it bothers me they don't understand the fact that the last board/administration definitely lost the confidence of the people, and rather than work toward mending that breach of faith, they plow ahead, as though nothing has happened in the past. Yeah...I am holding the current administration at least partly responsible for the "sins of the past". Fair....maybe not, but they MUST understand that once trust is broken, it's hard to regain it.
I don't expect you to understand, and I absolutely don't care if you, and others, agree with me. I know how I feel, and I'm not beholden to you, or anyone else, for my beliefs, feelings and motivations. Hopefully you understand, by now, that I don't lose sleep over whether or not you approve of my positions.

Apple,
The current school board/administration may not be individually responsible for past "sins" but as a whole, they represent a group...an organization. That organization lost the confidence of the people, and until the new individuals are able, as a group, to regain that trust, they're going to have problems getting the people to get behind them.
As for the governor issue, I never condoned what he did. I never even said he shouldn't leave office. What I DID say, and what OTHERS have tried to say, is that people like you have castigated the governor, but have refused to do the same for people like Clinton, Geitner, Kennedy, etc, etc, etc. Leads me to believe that you hold Republicans to a different standard than you do Democrats. That's unfair, intolerant and hypocritical.

Apple,

It always comes down to if they agree with me and do what I want they are good people and if they do not they are not to be trusted and immoral.

Actually, apple, I thought I answered your question fairly clearly. You have to admit...if one President does poorly, it's hard to trust the next administration. Same with congress...same with the district...

Nope...you vote them out, and hope for the best. However, if the NEXT ones you just voted in aren't totally up-front and transparent, you begin to wonder. Bottom line, I think we'd ALL agree...few of us trust our elected officials. Heck...there's JOKES out there about that very thing! Look...if we elect a new mayor next election, MOST people will take a "wait and see" attitude on the new mayor....no matter WHO it happens to be. That's what I've done with the district leadership.
You may not agree....I don't really care...

They have it now....we have some of the best educators anywhere.
Tell me, apple....where did the surplus come from?

Apple, I would be curious...How many of current Board members were serving when the last levy passed? As far as the downtown office--the only major changes were Drs. Colgan and Hargens, that come to mind right now. If I am correct, even though Hargens and Colgan were major players, the brain-trust of the downtown office, has not changed much. Apple, you keep asking people what the current administration has done wrong. Please inform us what it has done right, that has made YOU proud.

You know what, apple....I really DO like you. You and I may not agree on much, but something about you.....hmmm.

I'm done with this thread. I think you and I are probably getting VERY dizzy, going 'round and 'round this issue....

I went to four different elementary schools, in four different school districts. Switching around really doesn't have any impact.

ApparentlySo,
I am sorry that you had to go to 4 different schools and you say it did not bother you and that is great, but there are studies that show it does have a affect on smaller children and you must have been the exception to the rule.And it will have a impact on these children and if it is only one child that is 1 child to many.

Apple, first off, the surplus was set up by the 2004 election done by the previous administration, not this one. Secondly, I don't look at Carden Park as a prime location for a new school because the city has had that for years, couldn't find anybody interested, then offered to sell it to the school district, cheap. Why did the city want to sell it cheaply? I have been told that there were other architects that questioned stability of the land. Maybe that's why. Thirdly, the Cook Road location was not the first choice of the district. Karnes Road was. The school officials could not even move the zoning commission. Since I think you would admit that it is possible that neither parents nor school staff voted for their issues the last time, did the school district do enough to make these people think the issues were necessary to support? It would appear that the district did not do a good enough job to even get their own employees and the people who would gain the most benefit, to buy into it.

OK folks at this point who cares if it is a surplus or a reserve, either way you look at it there is 32 million dollars there and they could have used some of this money for maintaining these buildings for they did not close. Again the main point in all of this is the children not any of us.Either you will vote for the levy in whatever fashion they present to us or you will not.But when you rat hole 32 million the average tax payer of St Joseph look at that and ask questions. Also if they are not going to open up these 2 schools they have closed and operate them as such them then if a new levy was passed they would have some extra money that they did not have to spend on these 2 buildings, whats their plan for that money since this is called a operating levy? We all need to accept the fact that they are not going to be able to build any schools anytime soon because they are not going to get 2 levys passed in this economy.The SJSD does get money from the federal goverment for the title 1 schools but if you look at which schools they say are title 1 I beleive there are more schools within the district that are title 1 schools and the state board of education can investigate this and I beleive they should for one they say Lake Contrary school is title 1 but Hosea and Hyde are not they are in the same area of town less than a few miles apart. I think they need to re-look at the numbers they have sent to the state.They take this additional money and are suppost to spend it on these schools in these areas because these are economic distressed areas they say but are they? The way it is going the whole city will fall under this before long.

Apple, you asked me what I thought the district had done wrong. I told you. Now, I am asking again. Other than somehow getting 32 million dollars, what have they done right? What would the employees say they had done right, which does not include the almighty dollar?

mm, please tell us the different funds the district has and how each can be used. If you can't answer this question then please learn the necessary information to answer it.

FYI - funds mean a pot of money which can be used for a specific group of purposes.

apple,238er,
First I am sure they have several funds that the levys are split up between such as building maintenance ,utilities benefits , salariers ect,and yes they must work within a budget. I am very aware how this works I do this in my job everyday and I continue to manage to get the things I need done and hire the people I need to hire to complete the jobs that cannot be completed in house.I have a very good understanding how maintenance works. As for what I see in the district as I have said before if you have a ceiling tile that you have to replace weekly at Hall school the first thing should be done is to find out where the main problem is and make the nessasary repair for you do not have to continue to buy ceiling tiles pay the labor to replace it weekly ect,ect. This is called poor maintenance in my profession and would lead to termination of a employee.Now today they discussed putting the levy with the sunset claus on the November ballot but they said 63 cents would not be enough go figure they have 32 million in reserve from the old levy that will last 3 years and they still operated during those 5 years and they would get this back for another five years with the opportunity to change it during the 5 years.Remember they now have 2 less schools and 90 some less employees does not add up.

You write like that and you are in charge of HIRING people?!

Apple, you gave a very good school district, politically correct, answer to my question. You did them proud. However, 4 schools still failed to meet AYP. Even though I would agree with your comments about low funding, you have to work with what you have, not with what you wish you had. We can talk all about St. Jo, negatively, all we want to, but it is what it is. Merely insulting it will not change anything. Voting for a tax issue is showing good will for the entity that asks for it. In turn, that entity must be approachable, and must be visible, so they can have good will on the part of the voter. Personally, I wish we had new schools, a cleaner town, more high paying jobs, and everything else that marks a progressive community. But we have what we have, and we work with it and try to help it to become a better place, not cast scorn.

apple the district has brought on all of the complaining and bitching about them thereselfs for the way they have acted , the way they have treated the public and their speaking from both sides of their mouths,ect,ect,. I have lived here all of my life and I kind of like St Joseph but we do need to get better paying jobs, cleaner communitys which could be done with the city goverments help as well but all they are concerned about is pumping money into downtown which has died over 25 years ago. But some of these items can be accomplished with a better education system then we have.

mm,why would you be sorry? I'm sure not. Maybe if moving from school to school is so traumatic, we should break the district up into smaller districts so that each school building can house all grades from K-12 so we can ensure that those fragile little minds aren't destroyed needlessly.

Children are so much more resilient than we like to give them credit. But I guess that's how as adults we try to make ourselves fell superior to the kids.

And finally, the only thing that is holding this city back is it's citizens. You demand a cleaner city and are obviously laying the blame of a "dirty city" on the on the back of city government, but at every turn the citizens have ensured that those tools are unavailable (mandatory trash hauling and tax billed trash collection). You scream for a cleaner city, but you insist on fragmented and scattered waste hauling, because you want to choose who hauls your trash. Just like big business and better paying jobs are not going to establish themselves in this community when the community moans and protests every time the city and county try to provide competitive incentives to businesses to locate here and when the schools are comprised of decades old buildings and a lack of current and cutting edge technology that will prepare the next generation for modern industry. Yes, the majority actually say I learned just fine with the old methods why do we need to teach kids how to use computers and such: The three R's that's all they need.

Weelll, sheeet grampa; I tink we deed jus fine with that six grade learnin'

Even in your ranting of how poor a job the district has done, you refuse to acknowledge that the district needs to be funded to provide the very things that you are screaming for; and at the same time screaming that they don't need any more funding. That just perfectly defines this community and nearly all of it's issues: "I want it, just don't ask me to pay for it and don't begrudge my right to bitch about it and blame the city leaders and school district when we can't afford it."

ApparentlySo,
I am really truly sorry if you had to go to 4 elementary schools, and as I said studies have shown the children that move from school to school do not do as well. As for you smart comment on housing smaller districts for they can have K thru 12 in one school is unreal, when students are ready to go to middle school and on to High School they are more muture and ready to move on but that first year of middle school and that first year of high school is a big adjustment to the children for the first few weeks.Our city does need better paying jobs and does need to be cleaned up, but the kind of companys our city goverment try to attract is companys such as Triumph foods which only employees about 50 % of our local people the rest brought in from the outside. And for our districtfor needing money to operate I agree read some of other post and you will see that I have voted for the levys and will continue to do so, but our board and administration have issues and the public does not trust them. Also children are able to get over things and go on but why should they have to. I just happen to advocate for my children and ifg you do not like it then you know what.

No, actually I don't know what.

You aren't advocating for your children nearly as much as you are just voicing your own desires. Because if children at middle school and high school age have matured enough to be able to move on without an issue, then younger children will mature and grow to realize when they are older that just switching schools didn't impact them nearly as much as it did their mother.

The reality is that many people have hardships to overcome in live. You teach your children that it's not the end of the world. You comfort them and tell them it will be okay. And you tell them the world is full of change and everyone has to deal with change multiple times in their lives and you help them adapt.

Or you can convince them how terrible this is and make sure they know just how much there lives are destroyed. Don't forget to remind them every day. And eventually, you will be right. The move will have destroyed them.

I still maintain that the school district's problem is not in lacking a plan, at this time. Their problem is the inability, or lack of desire, to communicate with St. Joseph. I have said before and will say again, they have no community presence other than BEING the SJSD.The other thing is... this is a town of 76,000. There are still a lot of people who are not currently connected with the SJSD, and may or may not care what conditions the schools are in. It is up to the district to convince those people of the need to support the school district and its goals. When a school is pulled from a neighborhood, an attempt must be made to fill the void in that community. Otherwise, you may have a bunch of no-votes, right there. What dialogue did the SJSD have with the Neely School patrons, other than just closing their school? I have been told, by a Webster staff member, that Webster gave their staff and students a very nice and memorable farewell. That was not the case at Neely. According to a Neely staff member, nothing was done at school for the staff and students. There was no closure for the young people and their families. It was a sad ending to a building that housed a hundred years of learning. It didn't seem very respectful to the school nor to those involved with it. It makes one wonder why????? It makes one wonder if there is a caste system within this district. The problems may be very deep, indeed.

AparentlySo,
I am advocating for my children and my concerns for their future not idiots like you.We are involved very much so in our children education and everyday life. We are not one of these patents that do not care what happens to our children and they are to young to speak up for themselfs.I am my childrens Father and happen to give a s- - - what happens to them and their education.Are they rezelant and able to bounce back I am sure but this all did not have to happen and they should not have to bounce back.As far as what has happened to my children and 1400 other children it is done and it is my turn to make sure my children get a good education and continue to attend the school they have attended all of their elementary careers not people like you. Glad to see that you have your ideas and opinions and I have mine as well.

The basis of your argument is that you just think they should attend one elementary school for their entire elementary careers. Your argument is nothing more than what you want and how you think it should be. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether your kids are getting a good education. You can't say that they won't get as good an education in any other elementary school in the district.

The reality is that generally your children will be in a different teacher's class every year. And you can not know form year to year whether your child gets a good teacher or a bad teacher, even in the same school that you apparently think is the only one in town capable of teaching your children anything. Should every teacher start with a kindergarten class and follow every student through the 6th grade, keeping the class together all the way through? You have no real choice or control over what type of teacher your child ends up with as he/she progresses. Whether they are kept in the same school or not. Again, your child's education is not based upon the individual school he attends in a district this small.

However, there is certainly some differences in how each school reacts and comes together as illustrated by Dilly's report of Webster's farewell and Neely's lack of (if true). But having a closeness amongst faculty, staff and parents and throwing a farewell party does not an education system make.

apparentlyso, in the case of parents whose children were attending a high performing school ( like webster.... top 10%) and whose transfers involved going to a lower performing school ( i believe that edison was in the bottom 20%) there certainly appears to be a justified reason for parental concern.

the district's constant mantra that all schools are equal and scores don't matter doesn't wash. if it does then the district should Never make such a big deal about blue ribbon awards and gold star achieving schools. those much ballyhooed awards are based on the scores........

do you actually not believe that a staff which works well together toward a common good and a parent population which respects and appreciates the staff's efforts on behalf of their children is not a component of any successful education system?

ApparentlySo,
Correct I am saying that children that were moved from schools that have high scores on their MAP testing and these children have gotten moved to some of the schools who have not met Their score for a couple of years and are in jepordy of meeting their scores for this last year. So this tells me that these schools who are not performing, the children in these schools are not getting as good of a education in them, the numbers sent to the state tell you this as well. My children did not attend Webster or Neely but did get moved out of a school which met and are above the average on their scores and the district wants to move them to and yes I will not stand for it and I will do all in my power to make sure they go back to where they went and continue to get a good education for theyt can make something out of themselfs. Oh by the way this is called advocating for my children and if you call it selfish or my own personal agenda so be it but these are my childrens education to worry about not yours or anybody elses. Now they should be doing something to get these schools that are not performing as well performing , what is the cause? Maybe it is the teacher not teaching them and just sending them from grade to grade instead of identifiying a problem a child is having and helping this child and that is a shame if this is what is happening but something is going on in these 4 schools in St Joseph. You would fit in up town with the administration and the board maybe you should apply.

Apparently So, I know what I said about the end of the year to be factual. As far as your last comment, it was not about education in this sense. It was about decency. The people in the areas surrounding these schools cared for these schools. Some people in these areas had gone to these schools and returned to volunteer there. Since most employer complaints have to do with worker conscientiousness and "caring for the customer", it was a chance for the district to practice what it SHOULD preach.

Apparently so, I also got to thinking about the fact that when people buy a house, they want to know what school their children will be attending. If that school does not have the best reputation, they may not choose to reside in that school's district or enroll their children there. I know of a young couple in KC who reside in Kansas largely because they were told by their realtor that the Kansas schools in KC were superior to the KCMO schools. I am also wondering how much the enrollment of the parochial and other private schools will increase and how it will affect the public school district with all of this redistricting going on.

The reality of all of this is that the school population has everything to do with how well the school performs. With the changes in the district, I would think all current measurements would have to be "reset". So you really have no idea how these are going to play out.

And if people like you, you are obviously a stand-up guy that is involved in his children's education; and if you are not alone, you and your children's presence in a new school may just be what that school needs to rise to the challenge and show better performance. Or as I said earlier, your can work your tail off to ensure they fail. Your choice.

Now, even with 2 less schools and 90 less employees, they are still being faced with 30-50% higher utilities (in some cases 2-3 times higher). Rising insurance and retirement costs. Rising transportation costs. And, reduced revenues just based on assessments, not to mention the loss of the operating levy.

You say they could keep the schools open and use the 32 million to do the "maintenance" on them. First of all, that's not maintenance, those are repairs and upgrades. All done at union scale, which I'm not opposed to, but it significantly adds to the cost (who knows if the Foutch Brothers considered that in their "firm" estimates). But secondly, they will have to continue to provide funding to maintain all of the buildings. Now just how long do you think that 32 million dollars is going to last? While having lost the operating levy. Ultimately the schools will still have to be closed, but after spending another 32 million and depleting the reserves. Why just milk it along to lose it anyway. That is at least a poor business decision and is much more a waste of tax dollars.

You might have to consider some issues in the business you are in, but I hope you aren't in charge of the budget and making decisions that will affect the long term operation of that business. Quite frankly, I don't think you understand the magnitude of the costs associated with running the district.

Does someone really think I stand a chance for one of those cushy jobs where everyone says no one works? Can you put a good word in for me?

ApparentlySo,
Ok for the purpose of saving money lets look at it this way the levy to build schools maybe should have been presented to the public as to build one new school to the east and renovate the other 2 school (Hall and Neely) I bet if it had been presented this way and the public knew the cost savings associated with this then I bet it would have had a better chance of passing but that is just my thoughts. And if children that come out of schools with good AYP number and moved to school that do not have good AYP number they are going to suffer.And the reason for the districts rising transportation cost some of it they have brought on themselfs by all of this redistricting busing children all over town. Do you not think that there will be a levy passed before this correction 35.5 million dollars runs out. They just got 3.5 more million and it would not take all of the 35.5 million to do this work. But do you think it was a good decision on the administrations part to buy all new furniture for Mrs Flowers?And yes in my career I am in charge of part of the budget and do just fine and have been involved with making my 5 year plan on my part of the budget. I must be doing something right my corp bosses do not give me any flack.

Apparentlyso,
Another thought the district ran the schools for the last 5 years on the levy they had and banked all of this money 32 million of it and said that this money was not needed in that 5 years why now is it not going to be enough and when they get a new levy things have not gone up that darn much. The district is its own worse enemy if this was not a true statement on their part then do not tell this to the public.

Apple, relating to realtors, considering the fact that we were talking about houses in Johnson County, Ks. versus Kansas City, Mo., I think the realtor was right on. Your statement also depends upon the integrity of the realtor. I would also be curious. Is a house surrounding a high performance school worth more than a house surrounding a lower performing school? If true, which, if you were a realtor, would you opt to sell? Personally, I still have a small problem when, in this economy, any local government entity has that large of a reserve and given these times, holds onto it and wants more.

MM, are you saying that the last 63 cent levy collected 32 million and that they spent none of it that was collected? What they said with that levy is that they needed to start building a reserve. Something to fall back on when is a reduction in State funding or some other catastrophic loss that means the district has some money readily available. I'm sure they also took note of the historical rises in energy and other utility costs and also rises in energy and other utility costs due to State and Federal regulations.

No, I think they should have just made sure Ms Flowers had a space at one of the cafeteria lunch tables. Or hell, maybe a TV tray. Seriously, It's a travesty that they spent money on new office furniture. They should have gone down to Goodwill and seen what they could have picked up second or third hand. Fifteen bucks gets a really crappy end table.

MM & Dilly, you conveniently leave out the great rise in utilities. You fail to take into account that they have lost the 63 cent levy. And the school district didn't ask for more for the operating levy, they asked for the same 63 cents. Is the reserve too high? I don't know. What do you suppose it costs to run the school district on a daily basis (average it both annually and just per school year). I don't know what it is but I'm betting it is fairly significant and would not take long to drain the reserves. Especially since this doesn't account for any building needs.

Apparently So,
You bring up a good point with utility cost rising, they are rising for the public as well.
Mrs Flowers could of made due with furniture the district had, it is call hard economic times and you make due with what you have, there will be a light at the end of this tunnel we just do not know when and how bad it will get.
As I have stated before I will votefor the levys ieven in these hard times and the parents of children probably will but there is such as trust issue with the SJSD/SJSB TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS.As to if they have spent any of their reserve maybe you should ask them that question.

My question is not have they spent any of their reserve. You said over the past five years they banked all of the levy money. That infers that over the past five years they did not need the operating levy and that they banked all that was collected.

The point I was making was that during that five year period they were able to set aside that 32 million in reserves. Over a five year period, they collected about 6.4 million each year over their operating budget.

Although the reserve seems to be a fairly substantial number, that really isn't so big on an annual basis. Even if voters would have renewed the operating levy, that number would not be that big anymore just simply because of the projected increases of utility portion of the budget. I'm thinking teacher salaries comes out of there as well, I'm guessing the operating expenditures are going up. But now, they aren't collecting that 63 cent levy at all. So they will not only be able to continue collecting revenues at a greater pace than expenditures, they most certainly were spending monies out of the 63 cent levy above what they were setting aside. So they had two choices: One with the passage of the levy and the bond issues they were going to close a couple of schools in a few years and build a couple of schools that would have resulted in a redistricting (important point, they were going to take this action anyway - it wasn't a secret and it was communicated). In lieu of passage, of either the bond or the operating levy, it meant that keeping schools open was pointless and the redistricting was still going to occur, just not with two new schools in the mix. Funnily, one was going to serve an area generally accepted as being a poor area and one was going into an area that is more affluent but certainly undeserved with the amount of growth.

Growth? How can that be in such a poor econoomy? Hmmm...Have some of you even driven out in that area to see that there is new construction and new subdivisions? Some of the subdivisions are nearly built out and other brand new subdivisions are already being built in. Yes, new home construction might be down, but down does not mean non-existent.

And Dilly, I'm thinking the Realtors are listing houses that are for sale no matter where they are located and are selling houses based on what the buyers are looking for and can get the lending on. In other words, they aren't selling anyone a $220,000.00 home when all they qualify for is $85,000.00. I don't think the value of the home is determined by the quality of the school nearly as much as you want to believe. Using Webster as an example, one of the top 10% as someone else pointed out. Are the homes that were previously in Webster's district worth as much as the one's that were served by Bessie Ellison?

ApparentlySo,
You just do not get it, I never said the that the northeast did not need a school where growth has accured but they may be building homes in this area but I bet is it a while before any of them sell, never the less the area does need a school,the other schools could have been kept operational and renovated at a cheaper cost and they would of had newly renovated schools. And if you do not think this is a bad economy then I have some ocean front property for you to buy here in Missouri.
People also buy houses where they want to send their children to school as well, I did not where the district now wants to send them from a school with above average AYP score to a school that is below,why should my children suffer or anybody elses children for that fact? But if you do not think this will affect our property values you are insane, but not ffor tax purposes it wont for sure.You must be one of the lucky ones that children was not affected by all of this or you have no children.And how many of these houses in these new sub-divisions were bought by people that cannot afford them and how many have been forclosed on and or will be forclosed on? Also if read the no child left behind act you find that there are studies in there that says that children moving around from school to school have a harder time than if a child is in one school and remains there. And this redistricting has done that correct?

People raising families are very much concerned about what kind of school their children are going to. That is a fact.I personally have reservations about No Child Left Behind, but that is an argument for another day, because we have it and, unfortunately, it counts. I understand the point about utilities going up, but the fact is that if the district hadn't tried to go for both the bond and levy issues, the levy might have passed. The school district is in the position it is in right now because they were going for the "grand slam," but laid an egg instead. You must secure an operating budget before you try to build new schools. They didn't do that and that was not wise.

MM,You don't get it. There have been many houses selling in that area; new construction and some of these new homes have already been sold to second owners. Don't limit yourself to one subdivision. So it won't be awhile before any of these new homes sell? They are selling right now. Where did I say or even infer that you said the northeast did not need a school. And the school district provided for the northeast, in the manner that the district taxpayers provided. Plus, I get that you are pissed that your kids have to switch at all. You'd still be pissed if your kids were going from a failing school to a passing school school. You would just come up with a different set of reasons to oppose it. In this case, you get to use this one. Isn't that convenient for you. Because seriously, do you think that none of the kids from any of the "failing" schools were proficient? If so, you probably really believe that the beach at Lake Contrary is "ocean front".

As well, I'm not saying the economy is great. However, I'm also not all doom and gloom.

And the studies you keep referring to say all sorts of things about moving around from school to school, even that the schools failing to meet progress levels were a symptom of the problem, and the problem was caused by those families that moved, not the school system. So if your children and the others that are getting moved into the new school have any kind of intelligence at all, the school will no longer have a below average AYP (see they'll be meeting it with the new smart children).

So you really read every section of this? http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

Dilly, so why not pass the operating levy and fail the bond issue?

Let me tell you how it would have went levy first bond second:

Why are you coming back for money so soon?
You told us that was all you needed.
You all lied.
We can't trust you, in fact we'll never be able to trust the system again.
Don't even try to bring back another levy, we won't believe you since you lied to us this time.

My answer to not doing them both, is that without the levy, the school district, according to district supporters, can't function. Actually, I think it was pretty stupid to try to float them both with the downturn in the economy,which doesn't seem to be getting better, even now.The main problem I still feel is that the district has done nothing to create good will or trust from the citizens. Their approach was that a building, in Carden Park, would satisfy the west side of town and they could still get their new building in the northeast part of town. I was just not a fan of Carden Park. There will have to be much road work there. The school building was going to be built on 3 levels, with a parking lot occuping one level, the classrooms on another level and the playground on still a 3rd level. So much for handicapped accessibility. What about water run-off? Because after all, the east side of the street, where the towers are, is higher than what the school building would be. For that matter, what about radiation from those towers? For that matter, what about snow and ice and little old arthritic grannies who walk their grandkids to and from school? Relating to the proposal in the northeast, the first proposal was Karnes Road, not Cook. So much for the wisdom of the district.I honestly believe that this is the first school board and administration that seemed to be so out of touch with the citizenry to have the gall to float the 2 issues at a time the economy was bad and getting worse. They came off as rather arrogant,and unfeeling, even though the superintendent wasn't for the idea.

I never thought about water run off. Wow, as an advanced technological society, we still haven't figured out how to solve drainage issues (total sarcasm, if you missed it). No matter where the school district would build, it will require infrastructure improvements such as streets and sidewalks; and earth moving. You are just another person that was opposed, just a different set of reasons, but still not willing to let go of your mistaken notions for no reason other than to keep your opposition alive. We could get back into a great economy, the district could find the perfect site and solutions to all of your current concerns and you will still be opposed.

Seriously how many of the worst case scenarios are you going to throw at anything. Yep, those poor arthritic grannies walking under the radiating towers during an ice storm in December with 70 mile an hour winds and the threat of tornadoes. Wearing nothing but their bath robes and a pair of socks on their hands and breadsacks on their feet. The travesty of it all.

What about radiation from those towers? You mean like radiation from power lines, televisions, computers, stereos, clocks, microwaves, smoke detectors, x-rays, electric motors, radon gas, light bulbs, the sun, other cosmic radiation, cell phones, wireless phones, wireless routers: all the things we are bombarded with regularly.

And it couldn't continue to function in the manner that it was doing while modernizing and providing a school in the area of greatest growth and replacing a school in an established area (seriously, even if the motive was to only give the established area a new school so they could get one out east, does anyone really care what the motive would be). The families that pay the highest in taxes are supporting everyone else (and I don't live out on the east side of town and my children are already out of school), and, Dilly, you don't think it's fair that the east side would get a new school? So the district had to drop back and go with plan b: Yet, people are still whining and crying.

For the record, the best time to build is when companies are in a position and have to give competitive bids (if they don't they will lose out). It drives construction costs down. But, hey let's wait until the economy improves (even though entertainment spending is up according to the casino management, that's belt tightening at it's finest) so we can spend more for less. Good call.

At this point, I won't be back to this thread. It is apparent that there are some in this community who will defeat anything and everything based on nothing but the worn out cliches of this community. Hell, I'm not even sure if those cliches ever held any truth in this town.

ApparentlySo,
You are entitled to your opinions ,but our opinions are totally different. You must have more money than brains if you still think this economy is not at this point doom and gloom there has been no signs of this economy turning around. Tell the Harley workers that just got their news that the economy is good and everybody else that has lot a job. And yes you are correct I am pissed about all of this redistricting and will continue to fight them all of the way. And it does not matter why a child gets moved from school to school they will suffer for it. You must not have any children involved in this mess or it worked out to your advantage and your children did not get moved in the mess.As I said before maybe the district should buy my house since I bought it for my children could attend certain schools and we would move back to that schools boundries, since they have created this mess.As far as the comment you made the smart kids will help these schools meet their APY scores my opinion is this is going to put these kids behind because the other school is going to be behind ,but maybe this is called progress the district is talking about, holding children back and their vision for the future,my opinions is you cannot trust the district with anything they tell you.

Apparently so, my only wish is that when new buildings are built, that you, with your expertise, especially regarding technology, can be consulted. (more sarcasm, love it!) My argument has never been that the school district does not need buildings. My argument has always been that they did not seem to be able to communicate with the community or even have a dialogue until they wanted something. You have to be involved in a community, which they are not. You spoke of a lot of radiation. Does all that you spoke of make radiation acceptable? After all, if they build your building, they will face radiation from whatever is going on in the building and then can face it when they go outside. I guess, using your argument, is that radiation is necessary for a good life. (more sarcasm) I hate to see you leave this column, but do as you must. Until then, later.

Apple,
I hope you read the article today about the new school in Savannah and how the district, the school, and the community came together maybe you could pass it on to your SJSD/SLSB buddies.Hey by the way your buddies are doing a good job uptown I had a legitiment question and they were suppost to call me back with the answer but they are up to their old tricks not answering questions and hiding from the public.

The reason I am upset is that they closed down a school that cared about their kids. I had to transfer my child to hall because of lack of transportation reasons. My child has been in the school district since he was 18 months old and now he hates school since being switched to hall. I have had to have the supervisor over the prinples talk to the principle at hall twice in one week. And one of the reasons is because she was refusing to let us give our child medicine that he needed for the mrsa virus. I know that up at webster they would of never of done that. Teachers and faculty like Webster is what I want for my child that also has special needs and that will work with him.

dylntylr,
I first would like to say I can appreciate your position. These are the kind of things this is going to be happening come the start of the regular school year for alot of our communities children.And yes you are probably correct this kind of things do not happen in other schools in the other areas of town in their schools.This whole mess was cause by a couple of handfull of people that did not think things though before they acted so harshly and the children will suffer for this.These are the kind of post that the community and the board need to see for they can see the mess this has created for about 1400 children and their familys from all walks of life.You should have only had to call the supervisor once not twice and refusing to give children there medication is just wrong, I would have someones butt for this, children must have their medication at home or in school.dyintylr hang in there hopefully it will get better.

Apparentlyso and Apple, you ought to get together.I am actually sympathetic to MM because MM has children in the district, and as a consumer, MM should be given courtesy by the district. I don't remember MM ever saying he/she was voting against any school issues. However, if MM gets the idea that you are the district mouthpiece, that could eventually cost the district her/his vote. Do you really not want MM's vote? Do either of you currently have children in the district? Apple, did Savannah pass that issue the first time? I don't think so, but I'm sure you can enlighten me.

I don't think dylntylr said "going to", just said "has been in". Okay, I came back only because I saw a crap load of new responses and couldn't help myself!!

Dilly, who hasn't recognized this huge leap in technology over the past 20 years, let alone 100? No where do I say that I am an expert in technology, but one does not have to be an expert on any subject to be able to recognize vast changes. As well, my education in this school district taught me about things like the industrial revolution and even about computers, it even taught us about those advances. However, I have worked in and around the construction industry and have been a heavy machinery operator, where (gassspppp!!) we utilized various techniques of grading and drainage system to divert overland water flows as well as subsurface water flows.

Of course radiation isn't healthy but you fail to show how the towers are producing any greater risk, if any at all. You just throw out a comment inferring some risk, but you don't really show or provide any information that specifically says that those towers were creating any risk.

MM, Ford turned a profit. Hmmmm??

Yes, it sucks (seriously, all other arguments aside) for the Harley employees. It sucks for anyone that has ever lost their job to layoffs or relocates. The answer for tough economic times though is not to quit spending money, the answer is to continue spending. However, tossing it at the casino isn't the answer either.

And, get this. I have already said it once or twice. But I'll paraphrase. The voters spoke. Don't put it back on the ballot. If the expenditures outpace the revenues, keep cutting. You don't get it both ways. By the way, I still have plenty of family in school in the district and I would have loved to seen both issues pass. Now that they have failed, the school district took the action they said they would and people are crying about it.

No government or school district in this area is every going to have satisfied the whiners around here for "communication" (Savannah took, what? 10 to 15 years to finally pass their issue, and not because of better communication) You wouldn't be satisfied if you got door to door service.

dillygent1,
You are correct I have never said I would not vote for the levy,I will vote forthe levy, my issues remains with the board and the district. They are up to their same old tricks not communicating or answering their phone calls. So my way to get back at them will to be to vote each and every one of them off of the board as they come up for election. And then the new board may fire some of these worthless administration people that sit there in their offices and draw a 100,000 a year.My vote to support the children will never change but the board and the admin needs to.
Apple I see you are up to your way ridiculing a parent for telling what happened to her child and did you think she may have just made a typeo on her childs age?Apple please tell me what the policys and guidelines are for giving medication to your children at school I would really like to see if you know. Believe me I know my children have to take their meds to school and leave it there all year because of Ashtma so please tell me what the policys are.
ApparentlySo,
I do not think Ford turned a profit they just choice not to take any goverment bailout money. If I am not mistaken I am pretty sure I seen where they took a loss as well. And yes it is time to stop spending money in these tough economic times. I am sure going to run right out and spend thousands if I did not have a job, so your comment is just crazy.And as far as whinners you do not have to look any further than the SJSD/SJSB. Are they not whinning as well since they did not get their way? I agree with dillygent1 you and apple should get together for dinner and discuss your ideas because you both are far out there.

M, you had better reread the article on Ford's profit. You need to read today's article where home sales are up and the DOW closed above 9000. See, you said it was all doom and gloom and there aren't any signs of a turnaround ("you still think this economy is not at this point doom and gloom there has been no signs of this economy turning around.") The quotes are from your response. I'm telling you those are the signs of a turnaround, and there have been others and there will be more. It will still be awhile before it is great again. There will also be more layoffs and companies cutting back. It all doesn't hit at once, some lag behind; both when taking the hits and when improving. Unfortunately for Harley employees, motorcycles aren't at the top of the anybody's list right now. If they were and people were spending money on new bikes, they wouldn't be laying off.

Now, you also said you were responsible for some of the budgeting in your company. Your budget and operating expenses for the company you are in fine shape, you're doing something right because your bosses do not give you any flack. Well, if you are that confident and everything is working that well, why wouldn't you be spending the money? But actually, I really wasn't referring to individuals, as much as a group. Yes, there are individuals (like Harley employees about to be laid off) that probably won't go buy new cars. But when you read that casino revenues and profits are up, then the money that is being spent is not being spent well. And I'll bet you that most of us have not changed our spending habits too drastically.

Now, MM, you might find this hard to believe; not only do I respect your right to fight for your children to stay in the school they are used to, even if I disagree with you. I think that your arguments are flawed.

The AYP and having "met" and "not met" is really a poor indicator to say your kids should not attend that school. Did you look at the results for each school? There are plenty of kids in the schools that are in a "not met" status that are not only proficient, but advanced. "Not met" is only failing because it did not meet it's current benchmark, not that every kid was not provided an education or that no kid was proficient or advanced. There are kids in the "met" schools that are not proficient or advanced.

You then argue that you shouldn't have to send your kid to a school where they are failing (as stated above, that is a "not met"). Where are you going to send your kids to middle school or high school? Every one of them are in a not met status.

You say that kids that get moved test badly and perform badly. I already told you that I moved through four elementary schools across three different school districts, two schools in SJSD). I tested in the 98th percentile or above in all categories. I was in the advanced reading groups. I was placed in the higher math courses. I had an above average ACT score. I'm not saying that to say, "hey look at me". I'm telling you that because few children had rougher childhoods then me, even without considering the multiple moves: I'm telling you that moving is not the factor of poor performance that you are making it out to be.

You must live in a more expensive home (houses located in school districts that perform well are worth more, do I need to drag that quote down as well?) So certainly someone who is involved in their child's education and has the means to provide them well, can figure out a way to reduce the impact.

You argue that the district should have to buy your house because you bought where you did for that school. Except, no one from the district provided you a guarantee that your house would always feed to a particular school. Yes, you may have chose that house because it did at that time but that was your mistake in believing that boundaries don't change.

For me, you would make much better sense by saying, "The district was willing to bear the expense and continue operating for a couple of years with all of the current schools if the levy and bond issues passed, until the new schools were built. Instead of just killing them now, wouldn't it be reasonable to announce the closures, but to delay closing for a year or two to ensure that the levy and bond issues are dead or have a chance at resurrection and passage. I understand that if the issues are not resolved in a couple of years that the schools will still be closed. I also understand that other issues that arise in that time frame might close the schools down sooner."

Apparently So,
I thank you for respecting me for fighting for my children and to answer your question we will send our children back to the school they were attending last year.And yes you were correct I was not up to date on current news I did see where Ford said they made a profit, but the jobless numbers are in for June and they look very bad for our community as well as our country still.
Apple
I am still waitting on your answer from the above post I made do you know the district policy on taking medication at school?
And are you going to continue to ridicule parents for posting things that have happened to them and their concerns? STILL WAITTING.

To expand on my position with this, I will not compromise to supporting a cause that has been validated as being ineffective. I believe that solution will hinder and do more harm then good, it already has hindered progression and improvement in the past here. The sunset clause should have been eliminated a long time ago and I find it interesting that those who were adimant "yes yes" supporters did not take up the permenant levy cause years ago. It was known back then it was an ineffective means of conducting business and back then the city was well below the state recommendations local funding, but the status quo was stayed with. That has done more harm then good and my vote is not going to that cause again. I will compromise on solutions that will move toward progression in the interim while that long term solution gets hashed out and support from the entire public. And there are other solutions out there. They are just not being argued for or utilized because of the disconnect between organizations and government entities working together, which also has to change.
The district has continually stated the present operating budget is not enough. If that is the case, then why is not an argument for re-evaluation of the distribution of property taxes being grought up? At the present course, the public has to be convinced that by approving a levy. And in all this debate, one thing that seems to be forgotten is a levy is an additional tax to supplement existing funding resources for a public service entity. Those who manage those entities need to understand and have a plan to be able to manage the business on the original distribution percentage and if extra funding becomes available through a levy or whatever else, to be extremely careful on how that is utilized. The downside of not being able to manage on that percentage has been recently validated most noteably in CA (now issuing IOUs) and several other states are in serious trouble. The FEDS busted over 44 elected and adminstrative officials, a community in Rhode Island the city council has taken drastic measures to issue vehilce citations on private property "unimproved surfaces" without understanding fully the code relating to that, (going against due process as for years it was not an issue), many communities have frozen assesed property values even if properties have gone down in value to continue to collect the higher taxes, countless fees have increased for licenses, permits, etc, and the list goes on. I have previous municipality experience so I am fully aware of what takes place behind closed doors in a City Hall setting.

St Jo is not the only community facing issues, there are many others out there. Some hide it better then others. In MO, the communities who have managed to secure a permenant levy for education, good on them, because they are able to utilize and depend on that funding.

I have stated what I had to say about the pseudo name issue and have validated and rested my case. The NP recommendations speak for itself as well. However, NP it appears not much respect is given to your recommendation. Any comment on that?

I respect the views of everyone who have responded to me on that issue, even if I do not totally agree, at least you gave me a response to it. That I can respect. For the record, I am a bold individual, and I am not afraid one bit of saying what I have to say and standing by it.

As to committment. The validation I have of a real committment to the sunset levy cause is clear in my view. The Task Force recently sent an editorial to the NP about their position for a sunset clause levy and stated 32 members of the organization signed it. It was published without those signatures. The NP stated in order for the signatures to be published, they had to run the letter as an ad and that was placed at the bottom of the editorial.

A group who has very clearly stated they would campaign for and fund this could not commit to coughing up the cash to run that ad. To me that is part of a campaign. I have a concern about that, also in knowing full well the majority in that group does not believe the sunset clause is the way to go. That initself in my view validates the commitment level to this. The ACE group has been pounding the pavement in an attempt to validate throughout the entire community that this should wait.

Whoever anyone agrees or disagrees with, the "slamfest" is doing no good and those outsiders who have nothing good to say, I have a recommendation, take a hard look at your own areas, and see how well you are doing really. CA is bankrupt, 8 other states, some in the Midwest are on the brink, and countless communities out there are having issues. That community I talked about on the citation issue, that is a high income area and they have resorted to issuing "questionable" citations to find funding. What gives?

St Jo is not a punching bag and for the record on the educational front, the entire country is failing on that level. With all the resources, funding, incentives, etc this country has available in regards to educational prcesses, we should be number 1. We are not, India is beating us this year. The entire national structure is broke, not just St Jo. St Jo is at least in the black in its school structure and in its City. Not alot of communities can say that, especially the 5th largest economy in the world.

Insideout for the record, when I refer to outsiders, I do not mean you or several others who have shared some excellent insight on this issue. I am referring to all those who have nothing good to say at all and continually chastisize and degrad. And as a resident of St Jo, I encourage all who live here and participate in this forum to hit back and defend the place you live in. This is our community and whatever challenges we have here, that is our responsibility to address and fix, not for outsiders who cannot cough up who they are to trash it. St Jo residents, defend where you live.

Apple,
You are somewhat right on the medication policy but children with Ashtma has medication at the schools year round and take it when ever needed, they also may have a breathing machine there as well with the medication that goes in it as well.
You did not respond to other part of my post when are you going to quit ridiculing parents for posting what has happened to them? Otherwords if you have nothing good to say and want to call parents lyers wwhich is what you did to this lady above quit posting.Until you walk a mle in her shoes you do not know what goes on in her life as well as her childrens life.

"My child has been in the school district since he was 18 months old"

Apple, that is a copy and paste. Hmmmm....

watch it apple, your constituency base is dwindling........

To the district lackeys (and they know who they are): I didn't post the 23rd of July at 4:39 AM. I was in bed. If you can't quote correctly, how can I expect you to have your facts right. As far as the technology to divert water, I know it's there, but will the district use it? The technology to divert water from Neely was there, too. But they chose not to use it....too expensive. The mold problem at Hall is due to run off. Why haven't they used your wonderful technology? I think you two Aps ought to run for the Board. With your apparent arrogance, you would surely fit in.

dilly, you seem to be of the crowd that asserts that Steve Foutch can bring these buildings current for $4m million. They had said it is on tape. I am still waiting for someone to post it on YouTube. Please put up or shut up.

Apple,
Why does it matter to you how many signatures they have? What is your underlying reason for supporting the district so much and acting as their public spokesman? You have stated you have no children in school but you act if what has happened to our children is no big deal. If I was to post what the district has done to my family and children you would probably call me a lyer to, only I have the correnspondence to back it up, but will not post it I will be using it to my advantage in other ways. Or I will post it after school starts and let the other parents see it and then let the district answer alot of questions from parents.Also apple is was not dilygent1 posting at 4:39 am it was dylntylr.

Apple, I just copied and pasted part of the post )towards the end of this post). The posting was from dylntylr not dillygent. And I meant that my post was a copy and past of the comment; I thought that was obvious. Again, it is "my child has been in the school district since he was 18 months old". Save some of your ridicule for yourself.

By the way MRSA is not a virus. It is a staph (bacterial) infection that is restistant to a specific antibiotic. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. I've got to wonder how closely that person was listening to their doctor when that was diagnosed.

dylntylr July 23, 2009 at 4:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The reason I am upset is that they closed down a school that cared about their kids. I had to transfer my child to hall because of lack of transportation reasons. My child has been in the school district since he was 18 months old and now he hates school since being switched to hall.

Dilly, Are you sure that it is water runoff? I'm guessing that it is at least a part of it, but how do you know that groundwater isn't a contributing factor? Did you see the soils hydrology report? How do you know it isn't a moisture issue created by leaking plumbing, or condensate, or increased moisture due to human respiration, or equipment? Or maybe just a lack of ventilation or even improper ventilation? Poor roof drainage? Leaking windows or doors? Or water running down wall cavities? Or that it is a combination of some or all of these? If you have this data, please provide it. It would be good information for everyone to see.
Now, if there is a mold issue in Hall; then there are water issues and they can be resolved. But keep this in mind, it probably won't be cheap. Someone qualified to identify water and moisture issues and how to deal with them will need to be consulted (cha ching). As well, you are talking about an existing building with every bit of site issues already in place: Not new construction where every bit of site preparation still has to be done. With existing you have to tear out virtually everything that is in the way and rebuild, and it may require continuous operation of pumps if you are lower than the drainage points. With new, soil reports including soil hydrology can be utilized to best design the site for construction prior to footings even being dug. With most of the existing schools, there are also some lot size issues that increase the difficulty of moving ground water and overland flows off site(translates into increased costs). Now, if you can get the district to use the technology or if they decide it is too expensive and maybe shut down another school, is the million dollar question.
As I pointed out to MM, most of my comments are a direct debate of a point that someone has made. When someone posts something that I know is incorrect or when there are other ways of dealing with issues, I will post them (whether I agree or not with that person's point of view). For example, I think it is a mistake to put the levy on with a sunset clause (if it is necessary for operating, then a sunset is counter productive and much more costly every five years than some secretary's furniture).
I will also give them information that they can utilize. In another thread the concern is regarding elderly people that can not afford the tax increase. I provided some information that may be of some use for people who are trying to sell the tax (see, even if it is against my point of view).

238er, Since I hear there is no EPA report for INSIDE buildings, I go by talking to the maintenance men who work in these buildings. These are not only the people who clean the floors. These are people who try to deal with the mold problems when they occur. As for Apparently So, Since they are sending many of the children, who were at Neely, to Hall, it seems they ought to be committed to doing something about the mold. Relating to a comment about me thinking Neely can be saved, I never said it could. I am for safe and healthy buildings. If the mold problem is as bad at Neely as I have heard, I doubt that anybody will want it, and I will be interested in seeing if anybody buys it. I did say, however, that I felt the district was arrogant in its dealings with the Neely neighborhood, who had supported the previous tax issues. As far as the comment of put up or shut up, I don't have the data, that only an administrator can have. All I can do is talk to the people who have to try to fix their building screw ups. And, by the way...if you talk to some of the retired mantenance people...their screw-ups are legendary.

dilly, with all due respect to the retired maintenance folks, there is a reason they don't run the district. There seems to be a mentality on these postings that the lower the rung occupied by a person on the district ladder the wiser they are. If that's the case at the hospital, then the janitor would be performing surgery.

Interesting that 238er uses a hospital metaphor.

Let's see who is more likely to know what is going on with the physical plant at a particular school, the custodian, the principal or the superintendent. I'd put my money on the custodian. Don't you know it is the custodians, secretaries, cooks, librarians and teachers that really make things happen in the district and know what is going on?

Apple,
Riducling people again the maintenace and custodial person in these school as well each school has a maintenance enginerr and I am sure they see what goes on everyday in the operations of the schools they are assigned to. As well I bet the admin and board does not listen to these people when they need things done, and this would be called a good form of employee, employer relationship and communication(oh thats right the admin/board do not know how to communicate). These are the people that are in these schools everyday and know what they need and what they do not need to complete their jobs. This would be like a employee coming to his boss and telling him he needed this to complete the job you assigned him and you telling to do it without and then when it was not completed the way you wanted jumping the employees butt.I believe that these engineers in each school know their boilers, utlities and the building structure better than any of us on the outside looking in this is part of the school the public never sees.I bet alot of you posting negitive about this could not perform their jobs as well as the admin probably could not tell us anything about the safety circuit on a boiler and what it does.So these people are pretty SMART indivduals to keep our school warm in the winter and running everyday 365 days a year.

custodians are not electricians, plumbers, architects, teachers, etc. They are not qualified to opine on the structural integrity of a building. They are not qualified to opine on whether the building is functionally obsolete. They do not know all the various demands on the district. They do not know all the legal requirements buildings have to meet.

Yes, they generally know what they need to do their jobs. Supplies, etc. MM confuses custodians with engineers. While the district may have maintenance personnel who can maintain an old boiler, they do not have true engineers on staff who are well versed in the latest energy efficient equipment. The district does not have roofers on staff. They are able to perform low to mid grade maintenance. They are not equipped or staffed to perform major modifications nor make decisions.

Administrators jobs are to make the decisions based on the facts including what is learned from their staff. They do so based on many different components. Sometimes they do not inform their staff why they made a particular decision in a particular manner. They generally have no duty to do so. I know I make decisions every single day. I don't always tell my employees why I did not follow their advice. I have my reasons. Right or wrong it is my decision to make not theirs. If the custodian wants to be the person making the decision about which buildings to keep open then they need to get their degrees, spend 20 years in education rising through the ranks and then maybe they can start making the decisions.

238er,

I said each school has a engineer,the schools have to have a licenced boiler operator to run and work on the boiler in the city of St Joseph so you are very wrong I know this for a fact. There is a fire side,water side and all of the controls and safeties they have to be certified and licenced. I hope these people make some sort of decisions or our schools are in trouble and the safety of our children as well with boilers running in our schools.I make several decision everyday as well on my job and hire qualified personal to do the work and only use outside contractor when needed.Hey heres a concept for you as well is is called team work I will always at least listen to my employees and their ideas I may not agree but I work with them and I am not arogant with them as you seem to be with yours.And you say administrators are to make decisions then we need some new ones uptown they cannot make any good ones or any on their own and ones that know the operation of the utlitiy side of the schools as well.Scares me if you are right these people know nothing about the buildings and utlities and the boiler we could have several safety issues in each school then. I do not ever remember reding we had a safety issue because of a boiler /utlities in any of our schools over the years and the years I attended them as well. It is not pretty when a boiler explodes so someone is running them that know something about them.Hey since you stated this that they do not know the legal requirements of the building 1 do you and 2 was there any violations with the buildings closed or any of them that are currently open?

Amen to the comment about team work. A wise employeer listens to his/her underlings. The buck ultimately stops with the boss, but any business is going to run better when employees believe they have input and ownership. Relating to the wise administration, I remember some years ago, that a boiler did blow in one of the elementary schools, not mentioned in any of these comments. The principal, CEO of the school, lacked the calm under pressure, to ring any kind of disaster bell. Most of the classes went to the playground,because they had heard a loud noise, or word was passed class-to-class. Two classrooms, however, were not notified, and therefore, stayed inside the school building. The reason this was brought to the forefront was because a fireman's child was a student in one of the classrooms which had remained inside. By the way, the principal retired at the end of that year. I just can't help but wonder, while reading these daily comments, did the braintrust of the main office have any ancestors who would have captained the Titanic? It sounds like they're stearing the SS School District in the same way.

Dillygent1,
This is something I personally did not know had happened, this could have been very bad situation.It also make me wonder what kind of emergency response training these people in charge have to take. They should have evacuated this whole buildig and then made sure everybody was out and accounted for and not remained close to the building,not let these children sit in the building.It really makes you think about the safety and these kinds of situations at the school,but do not try to ask them about any of this and what kind of training the staff is provided and where they take it if they even do because you would never get a answer.It seems as we go we hear more and more issues the district has any comment on this apple and 238er this seems as if it could be bad management hard at work.

it does seem that this lengthy discussion is straying far afield of the article and original topic........

Heritage,
You are correct it has strayed off the orginal topic,but also alot of good info has came out as well as concerns for us parents of school children.

mm, first H is right on the straying off subject. Second, it seems your opinion is that if the administration of any organization fails to do what their employees say they are wrong. What I am saying is that they do get input if necessary and then the proper level of administration makes the decision. Often those on the ground only see one perspective not the entire forest (to mix metaphors).

dilly, I do not recall this. Please give some facts, date, school, etc.

238ER,
No I am not saying that at all, what I said was team work you listen to your employees and let them be involved and take some ownership for their work and you support them, not rule with a iron fist.I am not saying as a manager I do not make the final decision but I listen and work with my people they may not be right but I at least listen to them.
I would like to know which school as well had the issue with the boiler exploding along with why children were left in the building when this was all going on and what was done(their action plan) to make sure this does not happen again in a situation like this.Things like this could be disasterous.

Thought about the boiler last night. If it exploded wouldn't the custodian or engineer be the one on the ground knowing what's going on and be the responsible person for shutting it down not the superintendent or the teachers?

I believe the incident with the boiler happened in the late l980's, at Mark Twain School. The fact that the principal "retired", would lead you to believe that the downtown office wasn't very happy about it. To the parents and the staff, the principal of the school IS the REPRESENTATIVE of the Main Office, and thus speaks for the main office. Apparentlyso, I believe it is you who instructed me about how technology has changed through the years;that water can be diverted from schools. As one who is in the know, have steps been taken at Hall (since it will evidently be open until a bond issue passes) to take care of the mold and termite problems, until they can relocate at a new school?

238er, that was an excellent question about the responsibilities of the custodian. However, it would be the person in charge of the building who would decide if they vacated the building or not. That would be the principal. Perhaps that's why he/she didn't come back the next year. As far as procedures--it would take somebody who really knows the school district to know. That incident surely should have brought forth some kind of procedure for like incidences in the future. I hope it did.

But wouldn't be the custodian/engineer responsible for monitoring it so it didn't blow up in the first place?

The Boiler should have given some sign of a problem before this happened and I believe it should have been checked out at the first sign of a issue.These boilers have a safety circuit the could have shut it down. There is a fire side and a water side to a boiler a which could cause a explosion as well as gas to the boiler which could explode. But when it did explode the engineer would have not wanted to be anywhere around because that would have not been a good situation for him .But there was some kind of issue that as I stated should have shown some signs before that could have caused this explosion.These operators and people that work on these have to take a test for the city to work or operate a boiler in St Joseph.

I would assume that MM is right about testing to be able to work on boilers. My only point is that it is the administrator's school, and it is his/her responsibility to get that building cleared when there is trouble.

I would like to inform all of you about the maintenance department. It is staffed with 2 master electrician and several journeyman electricians, 6 journeyman carpenters 4 journeyman painters and 2 journeyman plumbers. They also have 2 certifyed boiler operators that keep all those antiques up and running. All building engineers are tested and licensed by the city of St. Joseph. As a carpenter for the district I can tell you without the highley qualifyed staff these old buildings would be in serious disrepair. Go to any other school district with building more than half the age of ours and you would be shocked how they are being maintained. This community is lucky to have such safe, clean, and well maintaned schools. We take pride in our buildings and do nothing but the highest quality of work to keep them up and running.

Excuse the counts on the number skilled labor it is close though.

Whitemark, I only hope others have read your comments about the maintenance of the buildings. My intent was not to insult in any way those in the buildings who maintain them. My comment was meant as a defense that even administrators make mistakes and that the one in charge of the school who makes sure everybody is safe from harm should be the chief administrator. As a school district employee, do you know what the procedure is if students should have to leave the building due to safety problems, especially in the principal's absence?

dilly, here is what I found on the district website:

http://web.sjsd.k12.mo.us:81/Section_J/JHF.htm
http://web.sjsd.k12.mo.us:81/Section_E/EBC.htm

I would imagine the actual plans are not posted out of a safety concern. I do know all children practice these drills and are aware of all the procedures. In the past decade or so with Amber alerts and all that stuff, the schools have become more aware of these things.

Thank you for your trouble of searching, 238er.

Not every child "in the school district" is in school. The child referred to by dylntylr on July 23, 2009 at 4:39 a.m. could have been in child care in the District when he was 18 months old. The District DID offer child care, apple, in case you were ignorant to that fact.

I would have another suggestion for the school district. I think if I were them, I think I would make darn sure that the opening of the school year went as smoothly as possible. I would also be VERY GOOD to the employees and to the public, in general. I say this because I believe that there will be those who will be looking for any negatives that happen, especially in the beginning of THIS school year, which would negatively affect their child's first day experience.

They have lied to us too much. With the economy like it is, it's not time to ask for the tax to be put back on. I will still vote against it. I don't trust the board!

Apple,
They have must of lied to more than one person it seams as if they are posting that they have and just maybe they do not want to tell you or have their name dragged thru the mud and they children ridiculed for what they have to say.This is their beliefs and opinions.AND THERE IS A TRUST ISSUES that keeps coming up in the public.Also apple the person above posting said that the district did have day care so it was possible for this child of the age of 18 month old to have been there.
Whitemark, thanks for the info and I bet it is a challenge to keep all of these old boilers running I could only imagine that most of the parts for them are not readily avaliable and some probably have to be made and I believe you all do a good job with what you have to work with. My only question is why has the district continued to operate boilers that are old and outdated and never replace them thoughout the years as they become old and out dated equiptment this would be a capital expense for the district and depriciated out over the years.I am sure these are subject to the same inspection every year as the ones in the manufacturing sector.I personally know what the cost is associated with these and for example if it had to be retube because of bridging or the fire side has sever damage it is not cheap. I am also thankful to you for letting everybody know that the engineers are licenced and tested as I spoke about this is a city ordinace.
Dillygent1,
you are correct people will be looking for anything negative when school starts. I will be watching as well as I am sure alot of the public will to see how well or how bad this redistricting has done and what the mess will be in 2 weeks and the class size as well vers last year.And you are very correct the district and their employees should be very nice to the public and listen to the parents concerns as school starts to help their cause.

Apple, a political reality: PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING. If I think I have been treated unfairly by the school district, the two times that I can most effectively air my feelings are... with school board elections, and with levy/bond elections. Something else you may not be able to understand: THE POWER OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS ONLY AS STRONG AS THE PEOPLE ALLOW IT TO BE. The SJSD has the responsibility to try to please as many people as possible, to keep those levies and bonds comming in and to bring about new buildings. They are even going to have a more difficult time now that these kind of pages exist.

Apple you are wrong on the boiler issue I have replaced boilers in several tight areas and most manufacturing plants this is a capital expense and the company depriciates it out over the years and yes it is a huge undertaking but one that is nessasary for several reasons one of the most important is for saftey and another would be the effeciency rating of these old boiler is horrible compaired to operation of the newer models this would be a hugh energy savings..You should never run boilers that are getting that old and out dated they should be modernized and kept upto date. Boilers that are 100 years old?You cannot tell me that they could not have in over 100 years replaced these boilers and more than once.Not to be smart but have you ever seen the destruction a boiler can cause if it explodes.No way I would want to operate a boiler that old and out dated.