— from Bea vonTobel —
To the Superintendent and the Board, OISD
During the board’s deliberations and discussions on what to include in the ballot measure for the upcoming November vote and its attendant costs, it seems only logical for me to write about my own thoughts and approach to these same items. This letter will serve as my own outline for responses to the possible proposal from the district.
First, remember that you will have a majority of new membership on the board as a result of the fall election. They will be tasked with refuting or supporting what the current members propose for the citizens to consider. It would be helpful for the current board to consider their plight and allow them time to garner the support of the public as the district moves forward, and not subject them to inheriting a defensive mode from the get-go.
So, here are the specifics:
The total thrust of my argument(s) will hinge on one factor: needs v. wants. To gain the support of the electorate, it seems a major reason for the bond’s latest defeat struck a chord with voters on this very issue. Support for the library and the fire department questions were well-presented and were documented with measured reasoning. Inclusion of the track, even with <50% funding toward its completion, seemed to strike the public as a want, not a need. Perhaps holding the donation for the future, and instead asking for funding to refurbish the current facilities so as to provide adequate and safe facilities might be the better choice—especially if the funds requested could be kept at the $1.3M level from the defeated bond proposal.
The May board meeting emphasized the vast support for two items: reconstruction of the high school parking area. That’s definitely a need, and has wide support already. The second item was the modification/repair of the current HVAC system at the high school. And, as was made clear at the board meeting, no matter whether the bond had passed or not, the high school will be cold again this winter. But the reassurance that the engineering and cost projections are already underway and will be completed during the following summer will give the public the information that this board has made significant progress to attending to this need.
From the original wish list, the completion of all items needed to bring the old gym to a safe, useable and lasting condition is high on the list for the community, as it appears to be one of two sentimental and widely-used venues in the district. The items on the list which would bring the old gym to its useful life would be supported, in my opinion. The other building of concern, NSMilton, has items of need which should also be addressed in this bond, and would be supported.
Kudos to the board for moving ahead on the electronic doors and using leftover funding to complete this item. Kudos also to the district on making improvements to the administration building. These may stem the tide of deterioration for the time being, but this building needs to be replaced with a more efficient structure, but this current iteration is not the time to do that. Its future, and that of the portable behind it, should be combined into one district-useable structure down the road.
So now comes the rest of the proposal. The board and its consultants need to take a careful look at the rest of the original list, the items that were on the February vote, and decide what needs should be put on the ballot for this go-around. For the incoming board members, it would be easier to run on supporting needs v. supporting wants, and for departing board members, it would reassure the public that they do have the interest of the public at heart to propose something they can walk away from with well-founded support.
I have no secret agenda. I am still opposed to the track for all the same reasons as I outlined in my previous writings, and will reiterate those reasons should the facility appear again on the ballot. I have no budget or platform on which to forward my positions except for the free press. I do have the desire to see the district succeed in its mission, which furthers the wise investment by the community in its tax dollars for the betterment of education.
I offer my support in ways that might prove helpful.
Bea points out that there will be three new Board members at the Orcas Island School District AFTER the election in November. At that same time, on the same ballot, the District is proposing a bond issue for various items that were previously on a defeated bond request.
It will be the responsibility of the CURRENT Board members to decide which items should be on the levy. That is preferable, in my opinion, because Tony Ghazel, Scott Lancaster and Chris Sutton have the knowledge and experience to make a well reasoned decision as to the details on the bond proposal.
Those three have some 35 years of collective experience. I strongly trust their judgement on the needs of the District. New members will need up to two years to develop a level of knowledge necessary to make difficult decisions on this and other complex issues. The District, the community, and the students cannot wait two more years to complete projects that have already been deferred far too long.
Bea, your argument against the track has continued to be based on the false premise that the track is only 50% funded by the Henigson gift. Everyone involved in this discussion should be perfectly clear that the gift funds the track 100%! The 1.3 million is to repair the old sports fields, which sorely need it.
The only other high school in the state that doesn’t have a track is Darrington, an isolated, disadvantaged, shrinking logging community. Is that who we want to emulate?
Last night at the special School Board Meeting, they voted to go for a 10.8 million bond + as levy for 1.3 million levy idle the track and field. The Board did not take any public comments ?
Dan,
Your comment is not grounded in fact.
There has never been an estimate created or presented to the district or the public which accounts for the repair and upgrade of the fields in their current configuration.
In fact, the actual segregated costs from the base estimate for the totality of the proposed work (site work, fields and track) that is attributable to the track is in excess of the base $1 million donation.
I suppose I should also comment that my above comments are based on the original proposed construction and I don’t consider my above comments a reflection of support/lack of support for the current proposal. I have not yet seen the latest bond proposal in it’s entirety.
Justin, a repair and upgrade of the fields in their current configuration is a no starter because a track won’t fit around the current location of the football field. It would be quite foolish to even consider it, given the fairly certain eventuality of the track. I doubt if Orcas wants to remain in the dark ages forever!