Email to Stephanie Stuart, 12 August 2014

[ in response to a communication about “referendum facts” ]

 

Stephanie,

I thank you (and others who may have worked on it) for compiling these facts. However, I fear they are too short-sighted and do not do justice to the past 30-40 years of Unit 4 – I feel the historical context is very important. Keep in mind, I very much want Unit 4 to do well, and I think our students and especially the teachers deserve more than what they are getting. But there is a perception among members of the public that Unit 4 has trouble building trust with the community. This has been a long-standing issue, and it is my observation that the way this tax referendum is rolling out is not helpful in that regards.

Personally, I would prefer that Unit 4 would focus on the most important issues first. In terms of capital improvements, we have a massive backlog of long-overdue issues that have been shoved under the rug. The $150 million tax referendum only takes a very small bite out of that backlog, the rest of it is, in my humble opinion, trivial matters that can easily wait a few years. I feel that there is a sense of mixed up priorities.

Can Unit 4 provide a comprehensive, prioritized list of needs and wants district wide? I would consider building a new Central as a project as opposed to a line-item – the corresponding line-items that a new Central would be a solution, for example, might be A/C, athletic fields, parking, etc. Those need to be broken out and listed and prioritized individually, along with all the other items on the massive “to do” list. At least, this is my opinion. And my request.