...and some local media notes on the campaign.
The Madison Central School Board candidates will finally all face the public together on Tuesday, April 5, at the Chamber of Commerce candidates' forum. The event starts at 7 p.m. in the Madison High School lunchroom. The Madison City Commission candidates will speak first; school board candidates take the podium shortly after 7:30 p.m. The event will also be broadcast on KJAM.
The local press is kicking into gear on the race. The Madison Daily Leader has my responses to its questionnaire; you can read my complete answers online.
Lauri Struve is posting her school board candidate videos on KJAM's site. I'll do a hard analysis of the other four when they're all published. But here's my sockdolager of a chat with Struve:
Holy cow! Eleven minutes?! I guess I just like giving the press something to work with. If nothing else, toil through my eleven minutes of policy expostulations just to see the audio start to fall behind the video. By halfway in, the video is positively Bruce Lee, with my mouth moving a good second or so before the sound catches up. (Enjoy also the lightning-fast Bruce Lee hand gestures!)
Back-channel, I'm having a remarkable conversation with a local journalist about school board issues that is making me rethink how we cover local elections in Madison. Our candidate forums (fora?) and local media interviews all follow the same cautious pattern: prepared list of questions, each candidate responds separately. We don't get a chance to really have a conversation. Chuck Clement sends us five questions. We all write our answers. Those answers get edited and published. At the forum, Bob Sahr will read from the list of questions. Candidates never get any follow-up questions. Our answers never provoke the journalist or the forum moderator to say, "If what you just said is true, then what about...?"
I'd like to see local coverage of elections turn into the kind of conversation I'm having online. My correspondent is asking me tough questions about building priorities, the budget, and even local history. I'm responding with my thoughts on budgeting and strategies for building community. I ask my correspondent questions, and we build ideas as we converse.
That's the kind of discussion we should have more of in the local press and at our candidate forum. Forget the canned questions and the specch clock, Julie! Let's change the format to a roundtable discussion!
Funny: I may understand better now Dennis Daugaard's denigration of "debates" last summer.
And now for outside influence: I have the first official endorsement of the campaign! Mr. Ehrisman of South DaCola has declared me worth voting for. I think that may be the first time I've ever seen an endorsement for a Madison candidate anywhere besides my blog. Thanks, Scott!
Did I hear correctly, that you are endorsing an additional $360,000 Opt Out from the taxpayers on top of the $250,000 already in place? Also, I think your comment that the replacement gym was HALF of the renovation project is extreme and untruthful. $2.9 Million out of $16.9 Million wasn't half when I attended MHS. Please explain.
Listen again to the video, Rod, and stop looking for gotcha points: I said I would rather ask the community if they are willing to pay more to fill the budget shortfall and avoid making cuts. That's my first choice. If the voters say no, unlike the current board, I'll actually listen to what the voters say and then turn to the budget axe. But if we don't have to cut opportunities, we shouldn't. What would you prefer?
As for the gym, we all heard BUd Postma explain the word games they were playing with the dollar figure. I stand by every word I said, no trciks necessary.
Wait a minute Cory. Did I miss the part where Bud said the whole physical education area costs $8.5 million? Rod makes a good point, where is this information you discovered that says half the cost of the renovation project was tied up in physical education? We all want to see this. Unless you wish to retract that statement?
Bud Postma admitted Monday night the $2.9 million was a rhetorical trick. We don't know the real cost of the full facility. It could be the same $5.8 million of the 2007 project; it could be more. It's definitely more than $2.9 million. The school has never answered that honest question from several voters. Show me the itemized list, and I'll be happy. Otherwise, having been tricked once, we can reasonably argue it is the school's burden of proof to come clean.
In an effort to put to rest the controversy of gym costs, I would like to share the actual totals.
Facts:
- Rectangular shaped area that is the gymnasium space: $2.999 million
- Total cost of areas connected and related to building that space: just barely over $6.0 million (includes entryway, which provides access to more than just the new gym)
I saw the sheet. These are the facts. They are available to both "Yes" and "No" voters.
Clarification:
- Total cost of areas connected to, related to and INCLUDING building that space: just barely over $6.0 million (includes entryway, which provides access to more than just the new gym)
This probably seems like overkill. It's meant to be clear, accurate and full disclosure.
Steve! Thanks! Send me that sheet! And someone explain to me how we're getting the 2007 building at 2007 prices. Recession discount?
Cory,
Hi. I went to the high school, asked a handful of questions (one of them being "Did I understand Mr. Postma correctly?"), and had the itemized list in front of me without objection or hesitation. I did not ask for a copy. The amounts cited above should no longer be in dispute.
Good fact-checking, Steve. I'll accept that for now. $6M for a rework fo the 2007 new gym facility. I still say if we have $6M extra floating around the community (or the comparable amount that we would spend servicing that debt in the first year, something like... $450K?), we should spend that amount first on patching the general fund hole, keeping teachers and programs. Any additional money we have available should be spent on immediate renovation needs (ADA, fire, classrooms). Then, if the community has even more money available, we think about new gym, bleachers, etc. Needs versus wants, set priorities....
...and when will that itemized list be posted online?
Cory, why do you continue to ignore the repurposing of the current high school gym? As you know, that space will be used for fine arts and classrooms, chorus, band, theater and will include a second level. As the locker rooms are expanded to eliminate the gang showers, as the entire HS gym is remade into classrooms and repurposed for education and extra curicullars...Well, we have to hold PE classes somewhere, don't we? If that's the case, why not build a gym space that replaces the HS gym for Physical Education needs, yet is large enought to serve the gymnastics team during meets, to host district playoff games, to host community tournaments and intramurals and provide more comfortable seating to our taxpayers with some leg room? Don't we deserve it after 100 years of never having our own adequate facility? If you want to have any chance of being elected, you need to move to the middle or risk offending 50% of the voters who supported the renovation project.
Rod, I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying Charlie's plan for a fine arts annex or other architectural alternatives are worth investigating. The old gym does not have to go. We can keep that play space and use new construction for smaller needs like new classrooms, storage space, bathrooms, etc.
And if you're asking me to spend taxpayer dollars on comfortable seating before filling teaching positions left empty by retirement, I will give you a flat no. It is much more important that we hire teachers and give students opportunities to do things than that we give them more places to sit and watch others doing things.
(And what relevance do my chances of getting elected have to a discussion of what's best for education? You should know by now, Rod, that I don't say things just to win votes. But if there is relevance to that point, shouldn't Steve Nelson and other board members be "moving to the middle" to avoid offending the 50%+4 of voters who did not support the renovation project?)