Last updated on 2011.03.17
The Madison Central School Board announced at its Monday meeting that it plans to hold a public work session to, as Chuck Clement writes, "obtain suggestions and information about which direction a proposed renovation project for Madison High School should take." The meeting is tentatively scheduled for Monday, March 28, 7 p.m., at the MHS lunchroom.
Now where have I heard that idea before?
Madison School Board candidate Cory Allen Heidelberger is proposing to involve the community in designing a long-term plan to fix and upgrade the Madison High School building.
...When it comes to the renovation project, Heidelberger recommends setting up community meetings to assemble all interested students, parents, teachers and taxpayers to prioritize the renovations and new additions they think the school needs most and design a plan for completing those upgrades [Elisa Sand, "Heidelberger Proposes Community Meetings to Develop New MHS Renovation Plan...," Madison Daily Leader, 2011.02.16].
Driving public conversation: that's the job of a good candidate.
Give credit to board president Jay Niedert: he appears to understand that the majority rejection of the new gym/renovation plan was a mandate for the board to conduct "a cost-cutting review of the project." Superintendent Vince Schaefer appears to acknowledge that we can't wait to convince everyone to pass a dream building package that does everything, that we have some pressing needs that need to be addressed now. "We can only put off so much," he said at Monday's meeting.
But other board members are signaling that they haven't quite grasped the participatory spirit in which I offered my plan for a design charette. Board member Tom Farrell rejects the idea of involving the public in creating a new, leaner renovation plan: "I don't know what we can expect to gain with that (effort)." His comments on KJAM are more telling of his dismissive attitude toward public participation in a new plan. He claims that the 18-member building committee involved with the new gym and renovation make the project "the community's project, not the school board's."
That's why we had the 18 inputs very early on, and they did a wonderful job for us, but there seem to be others in the community who say this project isn't what they're looking for, so we'd like to provide that opportunity for them to come forward to us [Tom Farrell, interviewed by Lauri Struve, KJAM, audio posted online 2011.03.15].
Seem to be others? Farrell seems unable to acknowledge the reality that a majority of voters want a different plan, and that the building committee did not do a wonderful of capturing the priorities of the community.
Farrell sounds like he's more concerned with rebuilding the case for the new gym. He tells KJAM that part of the point of the upcoming meeting will be to gather and present statistics on the potential economic development impact of the project. Oh, Tom: do you really want to get into a debate about the school board's responsibility for promoting economic development? If so, you'd better be ready to talk about why money intended for education is better spent on building a gym than on paying higher wages to get better teachers and produce more productive workers.
MDL reports board member Steve Nelson says some positive words about public involvement. He speaks of giving the public (Clement's words) "the opportunity to have questions answered and debate the parts of the project." Board members Farrell and Ryan Hegg also want to answer questions:
Board member Ryan Hegg suggested that school officials should collect all of the frequently-asked questions that voters had about the project so they could be answered. Farrell said that school officials could answer some of the questions at the work session [Chuck Clement, "School Board to Hold Work Session on Renovation Project," Madison Daily Leader, 2011.03.14].
While I appreciate the nod to participation, it sounds far too unidirectional, if not oppositional. Hegg and Farrell are suggesting that folks should bring their questions and that the school board and its architect have the answers. I don't hear them saying that maybe the voters have the answers. They seem to be clinging to the idea that their new gym and renovation project is still the one right plan, and that we all just need to have it explained to us better.
Believe it or not, I'm not terribly interested in having another debate. The school offered its plan, the community discussed it, and the voters rejected it. A design charette would be a chance for everyone to come together, discuss priorities, and develop consensus on a new, workable plan to meet our high school's needs. A design charette doesn't treat citizen ideas as mere inputs to the decision-making machine; it treats citizens as the decision-making machine.
But some of our school board members (alas, not the ones up for re-election this year) seem not to have changed their minds. They have their preferred plan, and they're going to keep selling it.
Oh well. I'll start working on my list of questions for the architect... and my list of answers for the school board. See you all March 28!
I continue to find it hilarious that you "created" this novel idea of community involvement. As if the people who attended open community meetings for two years have been banished to oblivion. Only those who came to the party in the last month were community minded.
It reminds me of the people who paid no attention to the rhetoric of Olson and Daugaard, and then were shocked to see that they would cut education spending.
Oh well, with that said I'll see you on the 28th. Let's build us a new school!
I didn't create the idea of public participation, but I'm advocating it more consistently and honestly than the current board members, many of whom appear more committed to defending their narrow vision of high school renovations as an excuse to build a luxury gym.
So you are the sole judge of honesty? How can you tell that the board members only want to renovate the school to build a luxury gym? That sounds far fetched to me. It would seem far more realistic to say,"Heidelberger will do anything he can to stick it to the district that fired him, consequences be damned." I don't think that's at all true, but it's at least as believable than your allegations against the school board. As long as we're just making stuff up, let's really go for it.
We did attend a school board meeting when they were discussing the renovation/new gym project. We spoke at it, were politely listened to, thanked for coming, told that they wished more people would attend the meetings, but our concerns were not really listened to or considered. They had already spent many of our tax dollars on the architects domino plan and had no intention of changing anything. We took the tour, and yes, there are some issues that need attention for safety and health reasons. But there were other items that were not needs, only wants, and one of the wants was the dream of the principal to see Madison High graduates in their own gym under their own colors, not the DSU colors on the wall. Very telling IMO.
Times are changing. For years people have lived under the assumption that there is a never-ending stream of money available at the fed, state, county, school levels. Reality is beginning to set in, and those used to asking and getting are being forced to realize that there is NOT a never-ending well. It's hard to accept, but that is a fact.
I believe the board was told by the administration to go sell this plan, in fact that is what was told them at the meeting we attended. Whether they all believed in this plan as the only plan I don't know.
I am sure that taxpayers would approve a plan that addresses needs. Then when the elementary school is paid off and capital outlay funds are again available, that is the time to consider an expensive redo or new vision of the high school. This is the way people have to handle their finances, put off wants until they can afford them. This project should be no different.
Matt, I'm disappointed. If I really were wallowing in the past and trying to stick it to the school board, I'd have supported the proposed 10% budget cuts from the state. I'd oppose any propoed opt-out to make up for those cuts. I'd advocate doing nothing to renovate the high school.
Instead, I'm trying to pry the school board out of its "only one solution" mindset to adopt an incremental plan that would allow us to start making necessary improvements now. The board and the media have been less than honest in its downplaying of the new gym plan and its costs. Let's set priorities, pick some immediate improvements we can afford now, and make a long-term plan that voters will accept instead of calling for a do-over on the plan the voters have rejected.
That's what I'm saying man! You are a strong advocate of schools, and teachers, and any assertion otherwise is off base, as is your accusation that the school board is out to cheat the world in a devious scheme to build a gym. They are serious, dedicated, individuals who are trying to improve education in Madison. If you don't like the plan fine. But don't vilify them without reason or proof.
Good. I wanted to make sure of your statement's intent. But the statements the school board puts on the record show an unwillingness to acknowledge the electorate's verdict on their plan and seek a cheaper alternative that could be implemented sooner. That suggests to me that at least some of our decision makers are too wedded to the idea of building a new gym that they and the media quite studiously downplay. What other logical explanation is there? That the new gym/renovation plan we voted down really is the only one that will work?
I'm glad that the school board is now seeking further public input as to what/how to make improvements at MHS. We also have a school board election with 5 strong candidates in early april that should bring about further public debate/discussion on MHS improvements not to mention the other serious education funding issues out there. I'm also certain that school officials will be far more careful in how they approach any future bond issue election. The tours were a good idea and necessary. Taking the ballot box outside of the business office was an unwise decision that in the end cost the yes side votes. Early voting is a right and resposibility of an earnest sincere voter who is willing to contact the business office directly in person or by mail. An information brochure should detail all the the project's cost. The last brochure which included 2.9 million cost on a gym did not add up to the 16.9 million. thus the lack of trust and the fact a similiar gym project in 2007 was 5.9 million.
The next bond issue if kept below 10 million, focuses on needs, and raises private money(in hand through a third party account) for any project costs above the 10 million will most likely pass.
Another thought----should we not consider getting outstanding debt on the elementary school paid with a new bond issue plus a modest amount for MHS improvements. Perhaps this bond issue would be less in total tax burden compared to the last proposal plus it might provide leeway in our capital outlay levy which is now maxed out. Example 3(1.6 for elementary bonds) capital outlay plus 2 mills proposed on the last issue--maybe we have less burden by combining the two(renovation at MHS plus payoff on elementary school). Anybody with an answer or thought.
Charlie, I'm still not ready to sign on to any arbitrary dollar figure, 10, 5, 15, or otherwise. But I do agree that whatever dollar figure we come up with, we need to know exactly what it pays for. I also agree wholeheartedly with focusing on needs.
Paying down the elementary debt—now that's an idea I haven't considered. Show me a spreadsheet on that: if debt reduction could free up more capital sooner for bigger repairs or building in the nearer future, that would be an option worth considering.
But again, that's why I'm not optimistic about the "public work session." I'll be there, rarin' to offer alternatives and work out alternatives with other voters. I'm eager to have a conversation that identifies and itemizes priorities. But I'm worried that, from what Farrell and Hegg are saying, that the door won't be open to give serious effort to developing and discussing alternatives. It sounds to me like we're gathering for another sales pitch for Plan A. I hope the board will prove me wrong, drop the top-down language, and engage in a real public collaborative working session.
If the elementary school debt is simply transferred from capital outlay to a bond, freeing up capital outlay for other things, how is that any different for taxpayers? The levy for the capital outlay I'm sure would not be lowered. There would just be more debt on the bond side instead of the capital outlay fund. Not sure what that accomplishes except to look like it makes more money available to spend. Whether the bond issue would be to cover needed repairs and capital outlay remain with the elementary debt, or vice versa as is suggested, it's the same dollars exacted from the same taxpayers, is it not?
Linda, that's why I'd need to see a spreadsheet with some numbers. Maybe (and I appeal, as Charlie does, to higher accounting brains) there could be some advantage to clearing the existing debt now (like paying off your mortage with cash early, saving on interest?) and thus having more cash available to spend on projects in coming years. I agree with you, Linda, that it sounds dubious, but I'm always open to a good mathematical argument.
We do need more information like the amount of outstanding debt on the elementary school. Presently the capital outlay levy(3 mills) is totally obligated for another 12 years. Whether the MHS goes to a bond issue or not, 12 years is far too long to leave the school district with its hands tied behind it back not able to address any future capital needs. The last bond proposal called for 2 mills--plus 3 mills capital outlay equals 5. If we can make some major improvements on needs at MHS plus pay off the elementary school and keep total mills say below 4 mills or about a 2.2 million annual payment, the school district gets some breathing room. Again we need further information and some serious number crunching.
Cory, I'm not advocating any set dollar amount. I'm just stating that 10 million is the figure where major "pushback" comes from property tax payers. If the final project calls for more than 10 million, that's where private money needs to come into play. As always with tax dollars, a strict emphasis on needs versus wants.
In the mean time, school patrons are faced with the budget disaster from Pierre. How do we maintain educational quality with prospect of losing more teachers and escalating operating costs like fuel, insurance, and other utilities. Do educators face the prospect of taking less in salary or see the dwindling number of peers? How is this going to affect morale? Is that the educational atmosphere that we want for our youth?
I can speak to morale, Charlie. At the debate tournaments in February and the state tournament first weekend of March, I heard teachers and coaches speaking in the most dire terms I've ever heard. They feel disrespected, angry, and hopeless. Many of the debate coaches worry the current budget could end their programs. One fellow judge, an undergrad, says he's probably going to change his major from education to something that will pay the bills. You could very easily respond to a question about morale in the K-12 system with, "What morale?"