Now that the School District has decided to ask for a bond . . .
. . . it must include in the public presentations it is preparing a straightforward tabulation showing all existing debt: when approved, for what amount, remaining balance, for what period of time, total cost over the life of the bond. There must also be a layman's explanation of the "hold harmless" item, which is less understood than the City/DDA/general fund/enterprise funds/block grant financial reports..

And it would be helpful if bond proponents either update or discontinue the vitriolic website which personally attacks the two School Board  trustees who disagree with the majority. It would help establish School Board credibility if the Board publicly disavowed such personal attacks and urged its supporters to focus on the facts and interpretations which the two dissidents challenge. -- 28 August 2005

Oakland Press chides Royal Oak
In the last paragraph of a 15-paragraph editorial suggesting reasons for Detroit's financial crisis, the Oakland Press says, " . . . if you can believe this, the city of Royal Oak and the Royal Oak School District are pondering increasing their property taxes to make ends meet! Development will slow and they won't comprehend why."

Not coincidentally, street talk has it that Ferndale, Berkley, Clawson, Birmingham are all hoping that Royal Oak increases its property taxes.

Detroit News adds its 2-cents worth
The News's headline reads, "Proposed Royal Oak tax hikes are unwise." The following subhead: "November ballot proposals don't offer sound solutions."

One paragraph deep into the editorial comments: "To their credit, city officials are looking into selling city-owned property such as Normandy Oaks Golf Course and even considering  a proposal to sell city hall and lease back space." -- 21 Aug 2005

All that follows was published prior to 28 August 2005

School Board Election getting uglier
VersagiVoice has been sent copies of an exchange of emails in which Dale Savage is disagreed with about issues and called a flip-flopper; Carolyn Steele is denigrated (but no disagreement with her about specific issues is expressed); and the Daily Tribune is accused of playing favorites in its selection of the letters and phone calls it publishes -- all on the way to declaring support for the Board incumbents, Kevin McLogan and Christine Hartwig, neither of whom is a party in the exchange of emails.

One of the messages, from Trib editor Mike Beeson to a correspondent, states, "We do not publish letters attacking candidates. We only print letters endorsing candidates." To which one reply countered that the newspaper prints letters "filled with vague generalities and innuendo."

The overall tone of the exchange of emails is more vitriolic and unforgiving than is reflected in this summary. 12 April 2005   

* In a conversation with VersagiVoice, Dale Savage commented that other school systems around the country are taking a second look at the Middle School concept. The 06 April 2005 issue of The Wall Street Journal features a substantial article titled, "Middle School Goes Out of Fashion" with a subhead: "Amid Evidence Kids Struggle With Move to Junior High, Districts Shift to K-8 Model". 

A key passage in the long text: "Now, a growing body of evidence is showing that preteen students do better when they can remain in their familiar elementary schools for longer -- with better grades and fewer disciplinary problems that their middle-school peers."

The boiler in Oakland Elementary School in NOT "50 years old," according to one who should know, and The school bond election remains a hot topic of conversation. The continuing barrage of published nasty comments about no-voters, especially about senior citizens, has pro-bonders fearing, anti-bonders hoping for, and neutrals dreading a backlash building before any third attempt to obtain additional millage, and Voice has heard a range of attitudes which is coloring the dialogue, if it can be called dialogue. 

Included in Voice's review of the contentious South End meeting about I-75 [go there] was a short note about Oakland Elementary School's well-kept appearance; the note included a school employee's comment about a 50-year-old boiler. Not so, says one school board member who encountered Voice at one event or another since that note was published. At any rate, walking into the school after dark is a cheerful and bright experience; the 80-year-old facility looks better than many younger public buildings.

More seriously, friends and enemies of and neutrals about the just defeated school bond all expect a backlash to the backlash, which reminds people on all sides of the post-election whining of Democrats after Bush won. Typical comments, paraphrased: "You must know  that those of us being attacked -- not all of us senior citizens -- will start early to organize opposition to any proposal which we have not had a part in formulating." . . . "You can't talk to those people. Trying to reason with the anti-kid crowd is like trying to reason with terrorists." . . . "I voted yes, I am both disappointed that we lost and embarrassed by the statements of some of my pro-bond friends." . . . "How can we tone down the rhetoric? This school thing is tearing Royal Oak apart."

The coming election of school board trustees in May will likely keep the poisonous dialogue going for the next two or three months. After that . . .  FJV 06 March 2005

Not just in Royal Oak --
School Boards & Administrations have a credibility gap
School boards in general, not just in Royal Oak, have a credibility gap. There are remarkable similarities, parallels, in the positions taken by school people (like, "They simply don't understand." "They are selfish and anti-kid.") and positions taken by voters (like, "They just want to leave monuments to their time in office." "Notice how the end-of--the world they predict never comes after a defeat?").

Senior-baiting, guilt-tripping, name-calling, nasty letters to the editor, anonymous phone calls won't close that credibility gap.

Once again, the pro-bond people seemed never to have talked, or listened, to people who don't think as they think. Did the pro-bonders never encounter well-known local activists who uneasily expressed uncertainty about the bond proposal? Did they never hear the complaints that questions were not being answered clearly? that some suspicions were not being overcome, even addressed? 

After the election, have pro-bonders not bumped into generally pro-school people who say, apologetically, "I don't know where you stand, but I voted 'no'"?

As in 2002, the pro-bond community made excellent public presentations and used effective direct mail pieces and activated enthusiastic phone banks. Certainly, if charm had been the deciding factor, the school bond would have been approved. The opposition was too often churlish, had some leaders characterized unlikable, and offered no options, just opposition.

For those who want to blame the loss on "Precinct 26" (the absentee vote, which most people read as "seniors"), it is well to consider that some seniors advocate closing and selling the M&M Senior Center to help the City with its budget problems. There was no senior opposition to last year's library millage. The controversial Firefighters' proposal to amend the city charter to mandate departmental staffing levels passed easily.

When the school board comes back for its third try, I suggest it frame its proposal based on the supposition that every registered voter has been supplied with an absentee ballot, so the entire electorate will have to be persuaded, convinced. (The League of Women Voters, at least at the state and national levels, is promoting "no-reason" absentee voting to increase voter participation.) Adopting that mindset rather than talking only to the like-minded will be counter-intuitive and difficult, but continuing with an us-versus-them attitude won't work much longer, especially if the bond vote is scheduled the same day as a general election.

A comment about the human dimension in all this:
In both the public and private sectors, too many individuals seem to lose their individuality after they join a group. Whether that group operates as a committee, board, department, commission, many persons absorb or adopt an institutional mentality which partially cuts them off from their former friends and colleagues. So it is that a school board trustee, a union or management negotiator, an appointed or elected public servant, a civic volunteer comes to be impatient with those who "don't understand," and their former friends and colleagues wonder, "Where in hell is she coming from?"

To return specifically to the 2005 rejection of the school bond, isn't it ironic that the anti-bond voters are making specific suggestions to help prepare the third try, and the pro-bond voters are writing nasty letters and making anonymous phone calls using uncomplimentary and condescending language to describe their opponents?

In polite contrast, VersagiVoice reader Michelle Headley, who served with me trying to save the Citizens Police Academy, writes: "Education is so important. I am disappointed that the school bond did not pass. This is till an issue that needs to be addressed! We need to think about our future as a community and not just the cost."
FJV 01 March 2005

In a relatively close vote -- 5,064 yes (46%), 5959 no (54%) -- the Special School Bond Millage was defeated in Tuesday's election. A first look at the tabulation of votes by precincts on the city's website suggests that Absentee Voters overcame the lead generated by 21 of 25 precincts.

The absentee votes went almost 3-to-1 against: 2,918 no (73%), 1,059 yes (27%). The absentee no-votes accounted for 49% of total no-votes.

Because the majority of absentee voters are senior citizens, it would seem that they were voting their pocketbook, refusing to approve higher taxes. That may be a simplistic explanation, because there was no such one-sided vote against the library millage last year. As likely as not, the case for the millage may not have been strong enough to overcome doubts and objections raised throughout the campaign. Question such as:

• In the face of continuing declining enrollment, how can erecting a new school be justified?
• Wouldn't it be cheaper to have fewer buildings and use extensive bus service (perhaps private sector) to get students to the schools left standing?
• Has the School District wisely managed maintenance, or has money which should have gone into facility/equipment repair/replacement gone into administrative costs?
• Is there a sinking fund? What is a sinking fund? Do different private and publics entities use another name for sinking fund?
• What is the ratio of teachers to students? How has that changed over the decades?
• What is the ratio of administrative personnel (in bodies and dollars) to students? to the number of buildings? to the total budget? How have those ratios  changed over the decades?

As millage proponents prepare for their inevitable next try, it might help if they provide a series of easy-to-understand vertical bar-charts showing such long-term relationships. Obviously there will be spikes and valleys in these bar-charts, some the result of technological changes in everything from heating-cooling equipment to computers in the classroom.

Less-than-gentlemanly behavior by a few proponents and opponents of the millage soured the campaign dialogue a bit. And there were the emotional arguments over matters like air conditioning and artificial turf and Schools-of-Choice. Overall, though, this was a fair fight among mostly nice people, with a few curmudgeons here and there. (February 2005)

[Compare above comments with those about the previous millage rejection.]

Ruth Johnson on the merits of Voter Consolidation

Tracking School Issues
Also see

School Board election got ugly.

Royal Oak Schools not alone in having credibility problems.

Close vote defeats bond

Compare above comments with those about the previous millage rejection.

Ruth Johnson on the merits of Voter Consolidation