The Madison Central School District's renovation study committee had its first meeting Wednesday night. School board member Ryan Hegg, who sits on this committee, demonstrates in the paper that he's still focused on rerunning the old plan:
We're trying to consider all of the different options, (such as) regarding donations for the project and improving voter turnout for a bond election.... We also want to encourage more people to get involved with the meetings. We want more public input [Ryan Hegg, quoted in Chuck Clement, "Renovation Study Committee to Meet Wednesday," Madison Daily Leader, 2011.08.19].
Gee whiz, Ryan: I thought you got plenty of public input last February, when you learned that a slim majority of the voters don't want a 17-million-dollar plan that includes a multi-million-dollar luxury gym. But when asked what "different options" you are considering, the first things you think of to say aren't actual different building options but ways to change the voters' minds and get what you wanted in the first place.
Hegg does go on to tell Clement that the committee will look at the work "officials" believe should stay in the project plan. Of course, the "officials" on the committee—activities director Bud Postma, principal Sharon Knowlton, and superintendent Vince Schaefer—have all been pretty clear that they just have to have a fancy new gym attached to whatever high school renovation happens. I hope you'll forgive my suspicion that we're steaming up the same train as last time here.
The committee did discuss some alternative finance methods that might alleviate whatever additional burden might be laid on the taxpayers. Committee member Charlie Johnson has suggested (and he tells me business manager Mitchell Brooks is looking into) repackaging the debt service on the elementary school. We have four more years of $800K per year in debt service on the elementary; repackaging that debt at current rates (possibly less than 1%) could free up a lot of capital outlay to fix high school ceilings, install better lights, maybe even add a couple bigger bathrooms.
That's great, but moving that money around won't build a new gym... nor should it. Either gym can be expanded, but more space for playing games must not remain a priority. If, as board member Jennie Thompson has claimed, our children really do face imminent and fiery death in our substandard classrooms, then we ought to be repairing those classrooms without delay. The renovation committee should be focusing on real options to get real necessary repairs done now, not plotting better sales pitches for an extravagant plan that voters have already rejected.
This issue never ceases to amaze me. Would you people please drop the gym talk already! Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to building a new gym, just not with taxpayer dollars. For years now the city of Madison has watched our University grow into one of the premier Universities in the nation. How did they do it? Not by addressing the "wants" of a new state of the art sports complex but by funneling the money where it matters most...into the resources and technology needed to give their students the best education possible. DSU is a great model for success and they are right here under our noses. I just don't understand why we wouldn't use there model for success to mold our own. I just don't get the mindset of the group that thinks we need to spend our money on a new gym while the programs that are used to educate our children are getting cut. Education is the key to a successful future people! Once again I stress, if the money can be generated with a combination of public donations and fundraising I would be more than happy to see a new gym...heck I would probably even donate to the cause in one way or another. I just believe that with the funding shortages already facing our district, any monies we have at our disposal should be used to educate our children. It's not like our current gym is falling apart at the seams and we have no other option. I wish the people of our school board would do a better job of seperating our wants from our needs. Or lets just keep it simple, I wish the board would just listen to the voters who have voted this issue down more than once already and move on to more important issues!
Cory--you know I respect your opinion even on issues where we disagree, such as the previous bond issue. But I think you should drop the sarcasm when it comes to people talking about possible safety issues in the school. The likelihood of the school burning down tomorrow (or in the next year) may be small, but it's not a good arguing position to suggest that we should not mitigate against small probability (though far from unthinkable) disasters that could have a catastrophic impact.
I feel like you've taken the same line on the bike trail to the state park. Just because no one has been killed yet doesn't mean that we can't seriously reduce the potential for someone to be killed that way in the future.
Either state that you think the fire issue is not really a danger (or such a low probability as to be insignifcant) or start including it in your calculus about what kind of building project you could support. Criticize the gym all you want, but don't make fun of people that suggest an updated building plan could have signifcant fire safety improvements.
Usually, your blog mocks only those that deserve mockery; in this case, I think you're mistaken.
Thank you, Brett, for the thoughtful disagreement. I maintain that if the fire danger is as serious and imminent as Jennie Thomspon, Becky Brown, and others portrayed it in order to scare voters into voting their way, then the school should take action immediately. The tenor of the cries of "Fire!" suggests that we can't wait for the building of a new gym or anything else, and that the principal should immediately close those rooms to all student use. Short of closing those rooms, the school board should order the immediate shutdown and removal of the kiln as well as the immediate creation of fire exits in the chorus and band rooms. Two guys with sledgehammers and materials could create those fire exits in a week. If those problems are that bad, let's solve them now and not wait for an accident.
That's not sarcasm: that's an honest assessment of the implications of other people's statements.