Letters to VersagiVoice

Of the reactions to my comments about developments during the 2005 Election Campaign, those below reflect the range of content and tone. Related responses can be found at Readers React.

Frank,

Much like our view of our former city manager, I strongly disagree with your position regarding the schools. I know some people who served on the citizens group that studied the whole program in detail. I believe that they are in the best position to evaluate what we need. 

This goes along with your theory, which I heard many times about, "let the people working do their job" unquote. You said this when you criticized commissioners who seemed to interfere with what the city workers were doing. I believe the school board, administration, and the individuals working on the citizens advisory group were in a better position to evaluate our needs. I also am one of the people who "childishly" made reference  to the outrageous, misleading flyer sent to all the residents in Royal Oak. It was a cheap shot and shows just how misleading some people can be. 

Sorry Frank, I totally reject your rationale on this one. I don't believe the school board could come up with any bond proposal that the anti-bond group would ever support. It saddens me to see the condition of the schools and so many people outside of the who think they have the answers. How many elections have you voted in where you didn't agree with everything or all the candidates? I know I have held my nose and voted in a few because I believed in the overall cause of an election. I am afraid that we have too many misled seniors and landlords who don't want any bond or taxes, period.

Thanks, Frank. Now I feel better.

Tom Wurdock

__________

Dear Frank,

You wrote: I encourage voters to reject any millage proposal for which the vote isn't scheduled on the same day as a general election.  

That's it?
That's all you care about?
Isn't that a little like throwing the baby out with the bath water? There isn't even a proposal put forth yet and you’re already giving excuses for people to vote against a bond. A little more analysis of this Election would have been more interesting before staking out a position on an unknown future bond proposal.

 
For example, voter turnout for a purely School Board Election, with no other issues on the ballot, has never been higher in recent history per the City’s Web site: http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/clerk/elecrslts.html
 
Hartwig and McLogan won more votes than any sitting board member, 6610 and 6404 votes. Sitting board member Tyndell got 5,158, Hartman 5,038, Briggs 3,174, Wright 2,515, Champagne 1,946 in previous elections. The turnout was so good that even though the losers lost by a 2 to 1 margin, they still got 3,168 and 3,017 votes which if this was a typical school board election would have been enough to be elected. It could have been also interesting to point out that the Absentee Vote vote also sided with the pro bond candidates.
 
I understand that you feel strongly about having the elections combined, and you may in fact get your wish in November, but let's be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water before we know what that baby is like.

David Pacifico

__________

Dear Frank,

With our nation's Gulf Coast destroyed and in crisis we have "Hurricane Funds" to donate money to!  What the City of Royal Oak and its school district should do is establish two similar funds:

1.  Royal Oak City Pensions and Health Care Fund  

2.  Royal Oak [new] Schools Fund  
for ALL OF ITS SUPPORTERS to donate their personal desire $$$ amount!
 
Therefore, if you feel strongly on giving our city government and schools more money -- open your check book and become a very generous citizen.
 
Sincerely yours,
 
Mark McBride
Royal Oak
 
P.S. Here is my prediction on who is going to win our city's November election: CONSUMER ENERGY:
 
Once everyone realizes how much our heating bills are going to cost this winter season --
NO tax increase will pass!
 
For this election -- Remember the "GAS FACTOR" !!!

__________

Frank, 

Your plan for Royal Oak is not defensible.

Unsigned Comment: 14 July 2005
Mr. Versagi:

I’d just like to send along some thoughts after reading your Pretend-Commission Candidate’s position on the school bond proposal.

As I usually find your thinking well thought out (whether I agree with you or not) I find it unfortunate that your published opinion on this matter would be based on the perception of “arrogance, condescension, incivility,” rather than on the facts.  My fear is that much of the emotion you heard at the 19 October SOS meeting results from the near constant need for “pro-bond people” to refute misinformation (I too am not a fan of terms such as lies and liars) that is distributed not as a integral part of an established position or platform, but as a method to raise fear and uncertainty.

The fact that the school community has “not made its case,” doesn’t seem to be at the root of your final word, nor does it appear to ever be the basis for dispassionate dialogue originating from those that oppose this proposal.  My suspicion is that there isn’t a bond proposal that would ever be palatable to many of the naysayers.  I ask you, “What exactly does SOS do to save our schools?”

As a concerned parent I am no doubt biased toward proposals that would improve the learning environment of our children ­ both of mine as well as those of my fellow residents.  But you might be surprised to learn that I honestly don’t believe that the problems we face in education today (or anything else for that matter) are simply solved by throwing tax dollars at them.  I do however believe that in this case, and at this time, our school district needs our help.  I have been in the schools, and I have opened my eyes, and I choose to participate in the solution.

Thank you for allowing me to share some thoughts with you, and I welcome the opportunity to participate in civil discussion anytime.

Paul Ferrero
(Parent of two RO Elementary Students)

__________


Dear Mr. Versagi:

I am contacting you regarding your stated opinion on the Royal Oak School millage. As a person who lives in and cares about Royal Oak, I feel it is imperative to let you know how many parents are currently feeling.  A great number of parents will flee the city if the school millage doesn't pass.  If the school millage doesn't pass, our school district will become the lowest funded school district in all of Oakland County.  The parents will move out and the property values will drop.  Even if the property values don't drop substantially, families will not move to Royal Oak anymore.  Do you want to live in a city with a dwindling number of families? Please look at the facts before you decide whether or not to support the millage. The good people of this city are already nervous enough about it's future and we shouldn't add to the stress that any of these people are experiencing.  This information is just to let you know how people are feeling.  Sincerely, [Name withheld]

NOTE: It is a judgment call whether public dialogue about such issues as school bonds informs or merely exacerbates. VersagiVoice judges this reader's comments as contributing helpfully to the dialogue.

__________


Mr. Versagi:

As a regular reader of "Voice", I can say I find your viewpoints to be well thought out. Of course, I don't always agree with you, but you do present reasonable arguments.

As an active parent (I did support the bond) in the district, I urge you to take a closer look at the nature of the arguments presented by the bond opponents. As you are well aware, the opposition was led by Trustees Tyndell and Wright. To be honest, if I was a typical senior citizen or absentee voter who had received their misguiding info, I probably would have voted no as well.

For example, stating that 33 million dollars was slated to be spent on air conditioning, a gross overstatement of fact. 

Also, insisting that a synthetic playing surface at the high school is a needless frill. Over time it pays for itself as it never needs cutting or watering, not to mention it can be used literally around the clock without damaging it. This will be so important when the high schools unite, so that all kids can have an opportunity to participate in athletics and band. Not to mention, there are only 2 districts remaining in Oakland county still using grass surfaces (Oak Park and Royal Oak). The other 35 or so districts must have seen some worthwhile in going to a synthetic surface.

I'm also sure you noticed the numerous, "Seniors say no to the bond" and "Royal Oak citizens against the bond" signs around town. If you look more closely, you'll see none of them have any "paid for by..." disclaimer on them. Again, giving the impression of a large groundswell of opposition. In fact, it was the same small handful of "SOS" people successfully imposing their will. You stated, "for the most part this  was a fair fight among nice people". Take a closer look, you'll see that simply wasn't the case.

Clyde Esbri

__________