The Madison Central School Board held a special meeting to conduct a "public work session" on plans to build a new gym and renovate our high school. As a former MHS Bulldog debater and debate coach, I came hoping we would not have a debate. But debate is what the board gave us. As a result, most people I talked to left the meeting disappointed, and we made little if any progress in crafting a fiscally and politically viable plan.
Board President Jay Niedert laid out a speech format that presumed debate: five minutes for one speaker, then five minutes for a speaker with an opposing viewpoint, then an opportunity for the first speaker to respond. In fair parliamentary fashion, willing speakers were called one by one to the microphone at the front of the auditorium to make their speeches.
Much as I love the open exchange of opposing ideas, that adversarial system last night did not work. Seventeen individuals got to provide input. That's better than nothing, but that's still a minority of the people present. The debate format favors certain speakers, folks like Ron Barthel, Becky Brown, Henry Kraai, Darin Namken, and myself who are passionate, outspoken, unafraid of public speaking, and perhaps farther toward opposite ends of the issue. The strong partisans jump to the microphone, while the majority of folks in the middle who may have plenty of good new ideas choose (not unreasonably) to avoid jumping into the fray.
There shouldn't have been a fray. There should have been a public work session, where every member of the public could do some work. The design charette model I publicly proposed in February would have provided that opportunity. It would have taken everyone through the building again. It would had everyone sitting together in small groups at tables, face to face, not all in the rigid lines of the auditorium staring all in one direction at a distant speaker isolated at a microphone. It would have had everyone engaging each other as neighbors in conversation, not as objects to be formally rebutted. A skilled moderator (folks at the Rural Learning Center could help here) could have facilitated small-group conversations and large-group sharing sessions. In a design charette, people would have spent more time building ideas rather than trying to score rhetorical points.
Toward the end of the meeting, architect Jeff Nelson captured the general disappointment perfectly. He sat for two hours at the front table, mostly silently, patiently observing our small-town rhetorical exercise. He fielded a couple of questions, including Ron Barthel's very sensible question about the feasibility of simply expanding the existing middle school gym. Then he said (at about 8:45 p.m., fifteen minutes before adjournment) that he had hoped he'd hear more specific ideas about how we might fix the building. A design charette would have brought many more of those ideas forward.
Now don't get me wrong: I am still very grateful that the board took two hours to ask for public input. I am very grateful that seventeen citizens (including myself) got to address the board and a crowd of maybe eighty people, including a sizable number of MHS staff. I am very grateful that the school board defied my expectations and did not subject us to a top-down, one-way sales pitch for their original failed building plan. I am grateful that the board set up their table on the auditorium floor rather than lording over the public by sitting on the stage.
But the Madison Central School Board missed a golden opportunity to foster public participation. The debate format allowed only a small minority to actively participate. The great majority who took time to attend were left spectating. They could whisper to their neighbors (including snide commentary I heard from the clump of MHS coaches behind me ridiculing one speaker—not exactly neighborly Bulldog spirit, fellas), but they couldn't participate with the group as a whole.
I heard others say that last night's session was at least a good venting session. But the debate did not build community, and it did not build new ideas. It only repeated the debate we had this winter, a debate the community resolved with a majority vote rejecting the new gym/renovation plan.
I love debate, but debate is not what we need right now. The board should ride this wave of public interest and call a design charette. As I heard a neighbor say last night, the board should bring everyone back to the table, not for a debate, but for a practical problem-solving conversation.
I went to the Meeting last night and was disappointed that the board did not encourage questions from the public, only commentary.
I was seriously impressed by Ashley Kenneth Allen. Anna Elise Brown did a great job of explaining constraints and shortcomings of the current facility. Matt Groce actually asked questions. Bud Postma clarified some numbers up about the gym. John Hess talked about the reality of economic development.
I had several simple questions that I wanted someone to ask:
1. What happens if we do nothing?
2. What changes are (or will be soon) mandated by the SD Fire Marshal?
3. How many improvements can be made before triggering a point where the entire building has to be brought up to ADA and to current fire codes?
4. What are the hard costs of doing what needs to be done one step at a time over many years vs. doing everything all at once now with the current plan?
5. How will any improvements help the quality of education?
6. How much money does the district have available for improvements without having to pass a bond issue?
I would love to see a building remodel with a gym for Madison.
I, like many of the speakers last night, did not go intending to speak, but...
I was disappointed because it seemed to at times be an "us" (those who love the plan, want all the improvements, but pay little toward it) and "they" (who also recognize the actual needs and are those being asked to foot most of the cost). There does not appear to be a lot of understanding from the "us" crowd. It should not need to be this. We all support education, even those of us who voted no.
My question to some people after the meeting was what happens if we spend all this money now, make the improvements, and by the time it is paid off (or before), other mandates and the aging of the school building itself make a new school the then "want?" Would it be not be better to address the actual needs now and rethink strategies for paying for the wants (waiting until capital outlay is available after the elementary school is paid for, donations into an escrow account, redoing the payment schedule for the elementary school thus freeing up more C.O. revenue for high school repairs, etc).
The people we spoke to afterwards wanted a session like Cory is talking about to actually work on issues rather than a forum like last night. These people wanted a chance to come together and reach a compromise/consensus.
And regarding the gym, Mr. Postma did explain the rationale behind the low figures for the gym, and it was exactly what was known, it was only for the shell of the gym itself, while even he admitted the cost for the entire gym complex was 5.9 million or so. Somehow I don't think the gym independent of the new locker rooms, weight room, offices, concession area, entry etc. would be very feasible; nor would the new rooms without the gym shell. In other words, be upfront about the actual costs devoted to the gym and its ancillary structures; it's an all or nothing package as regards the gym and the cost estimate should reflect that.
A point of interest I realized was that a lot of the speakers were names I recognized from this blog and now can put a face to!
One thing I have always wanted to know is what happened to the relationship the school district has with the public? I have only been in Madison 13 years and I have not seen anything in these years that would make things as polarizing as they seem to be. It just strikes me as odd that I don't sense or feel animosity about our City government like I do about our school. Could somebody please explain what is the deal?
I don't know, Wayne: I've heard some pretty strong feelings about city and county government.
Linda, you're spot on: the debate format fosters the "us versus them" attitude that will make it more difficult to get anything done. Bud's answer was a prime example: instead of simply laying out the facts and dollars and making clear where the numbers came from when the plan was originally introduced, he chose to rehash the 2007 new gym debate and accuse people of unfair rhetorical tactics. Even that exchange would have been tempered by a face-to-face conversation in a small group at a table rather than a big audience performance.
It would have been good to hear from the other school board candidates in attendance (and they all should have been there!) as to their views of this issue. We know how one feels!
And a note to the Daily Leader if they read this blog that the should have the candidate questionnaires out the minute the filing closes for these positions, give the candidates a week to complete them, and get them into the paper before early voting begins. Many people do vote early and should have this information available before any voting occurs.
I want to clarify my statement last night regarding whether I receive farm subsidies. Subsidies are generally meant to mean gov't payments for growing crops etc, and I don't receive any of these. I do have some of my land in the conservation reserve program, for which I receive rental payments from the gov't to set aside land for conservation, wildlife, etc. Having the gov't rent it for conservation purposes is no different than having another person rent it for crops, pasture, etc. It is simply rental.
It isn't easy to speak in a public setting last night and be attacked by a question not relevant to the discussion, and I didn't think quickly enough to give a full response. I just wanted to clarify this even though it has nothing to do with the school renovation.
There was no meaningful exchange with the school board, but they listened closely. They may be testing the waters how to proceed. That's important and I did find other people's views informative, although it struck me the people of greater means that want this passionately don't seem to care how others are affected or the process it takes to get there. The moderates, like Patty Sys, simply want a better school system for their kids, which we need, and we need to attract more people to our community. People got frustrated with the school board when they went around the public vote to build, what was it, the elementary school. I'm troubled by their voting tactics, but otherwise appreciate their service. The ends simply don't justify the means.
You're right, John: there was value in the board's listening and testing the waters. And it is always good for voters to hear other people's ideas, face to face. The event was certainly better than nothing. But we need to build on the event now (through venues like this blog, letters to the editor, and in more public meetings) to have some meaningful conversation with an aim toward building, as Linda says, compromise and consensus.
First of all, thank you Cory for the effort of putting last night's meeting on video therefore allowing the greater community an opportunity to witness. It was a great service to all.
A bond issue is to the capital outlay levy what an op-out is to supplement school aid funding. Both involve local board decision, both require(if an op-out is referred) a public vote, and each is a further extension of property taxes to be paid by property owners(note I said owners not voters). Supt. Schaeffer did a good job explaining how the capital outlay is used. About half of our 3 mills of capital levy(we are at the max now) is used to pay the bonds on the elementary school. Normally the capital outlay is used to pay for major renovations but right now there is no wiggle room in capital outlay to even do the most basic repairs at MHS. The school district in hind sight should have bonded the elementary project and have capital outlay available to do upkeep at MHS. What perhaps could be feasible and may take more research is to take a more modest bond issue forward with the approach that the present elementary school bonds along with renovations at MHS be financed together in order to free up capital outlay. If the original renovation project or something similiar is to take place, those additional dollars need to come from a different source-either sales tax money from the city or private donations. In summary, present a bond issue to finance the elementary school along with fixing basic, immediate needs at MHS and use outside money to finance our wants. In other words, we settle old debt, address needs, free up capital outlay to be prudent for future years, and we as a community rally around private fundraising to build the top notch quality building we all believe we should have, want, and deserve.
Was it not cool to hear how that the students were involved in so many high school activities that there was space and scheduling conflicts.
Other schools do not have near the chaos that MHS has because they have already cut every extra program years ago.
{CAH: ...and I hope we can do all we can to preserve every one of those activities that give our kids such varied opportunities. That's why, if we have to choose, I'd rather spend the money to keep teachers on the job to lead those activities than expand space just so people can sit and watch those activities.}
To Wayne's point: the city does not deal with the welfare and education of people's children, a sensitive issue. Nor does it have to deal with the sensitivities of ag property owners, except when it wants to build a bike trail on one's property. Then things go south in a hurry.
To Neil's point: I have several high income tax bracket friends that are after me to take them to SD to hunt pheasants. I would like to hunt your land that we are paying rent on. See you on opening day! :)
Mr. Super,
Our taxes paid for your house. Can we have a sleep over?
Yup, Been on the public dole pretty much all my life, beginning with a tour in Vietnam and 40 years in public education, the most important subject we can be engaged in according to Abe Limcoln and the occupation that makes all others possible. So come on over and take whatever you think is yours. As for me I just want to hunt pheasants while I am eligible for Medicare and social security. What a country! Many should quit their bitchin' about it.
Or maybe the bottom 99 percent is starting to wake up. No sympathies for your high bracket hunting party.
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=all
My hunting part isn't looking for sympathy.