Re: School Taxes
- To: Jack Porter <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: School Taxes
- From: Gerald Weitz <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 21:30:39 -0600
- In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 21:26:00 -0800 (PST)
- Resent-From: email@example.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <xJ-wKB.A.cyC.jDUq8@whale.fsr.net>
- Resent-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
I will be voting for the levy and will be very
supportive. My track record during my tenure on the Board was to go
to the public and ask for more money. I did this every year as the
minority position. Joe Geiger during his last year supported
an increase to the levy. We keyed any increase to long term
contracts and very specific goals.
Incidentally, I have received a considerable amount of feedback from a
very wide assortment of folks. Many will never vote for a levy
increase without significant changes within the district. I will
list the feedback in order of importance. #1 increase the instructional
days, #2 do not reconfigure West Park, #3 increase Votech, 4# use the U
The most common theme: get rid of the present Admin and the present
Board. Please note that low class size was not much of a concern
and that long term contracts did not seem to be on the radar
At 08:33 PM 03/29/2002 -0800, Jack Porter wrote:
Gerry, your stated goals are fine (long term
and fair labor contracts, using the university for dual enrollment and
Votech, and increasing instructional days to 180), but voting
"no" on the levy would be counterproductive.
Do you think the school district will expand its vocational programs when
it's having to cut back existing programs for lack of money?
On April 23 we have only two choices -- this levy or no levy.
Realistically, would our kids get a better education with fewer teachers,
larger classes, and fewer course offerings?
There are a lot of things you and I both wish the district would do
differently, but voting the levy down isn't the way to get there.
It might make you feel good, but it's not constructive.
A levy failure would certainly produce changes, but not the ones you
want. To get the changes you want, we need to change some board
members' minds, or replace some board members.
At 11:33 PM 3/28/2002 -0600, you wrote:
I think it is time to insist on changes and insist on 1) long term and
fair labor contracts, 2) using the university for dual enrollment and
Votech, 3) increasing instructional days to 180 not 167. These are
very boiler plate and simple items. We are not building the
international space station. I have not heard of one meaningful
reform from the district that will actually cause the above to
transpire. Thankyou for reading this, nothing in
education as I have learned can be stated in a few words.
Back to TOC