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.