School Changes

[momof 2boys]

There have been times that the board has asked for the public input during a meeting.  The board members are also open to you contacting them to discuss whatever matter.  The board did mail out a flier regarding the matter.  I know that it went out to parents of children first, then to the remainder of the public.  Yes, some were received after the voter registration deadline but this did not affect me as I have been registered to vote since I turned 18 many years ago.  Now I am depressed at the thought of how long ago it was that I was 18.   

[Patriot]

There have been times that the board has asked for the public input during a meeting.  The board members are also open to you contacting them to discuss whatever matter.  The board did mail out a flier regarding the matter.  I know that it went out to parents of children first, then to the remainder of the public.  Yes, some were received after the voter registration deadline but this did not affect me as I have been registered to vote since I turned 18 many years ago.  Now I am depressed at the thought of how long ago it was that I was 18.   

Ok... the board mailed out a flier... if that was the slick foldover... it was LATE!  Should have been out weeks before the vote.  And since when is such a mailing from a governmental body who is responsible to ALL taxpayers given preference to 'folks with kids'.  While the families with children have a vested interest in the outcomes, the fiduciary and legal responsibility of the board is to ALL the taxpayers.

While it's nice that the board 'at times' asks for public input at its' meetings, that doesn't do much good on large issues if there is nobody there to give input.  As for contacting the board, that's a dodge.  The issue was board responsibility to make sure the affected taxpayers were aware of such a large issue well BEFORE decisions are made or votes are taken.  Not as an afterthought.  My suggestion stands.  Just because the board meets the minimum legal standards of publication in a recognized newspaper does not preclude them from going a bit further on such major issues.  I'm sure we expect the 'extra mile' from our kids, is it too much to expect the same from our elected folks?

[flo]

I've been reading posts, studying "between the lines" and here is my opinion, for what it's worth.  Howard's voters carried most of the YES votes.  The majority of the NO's were from the other towns in the district.  Do you suppose they voted NO, not because of the raise in taxes or the cost of a new school, but because they did not want to lose the school in their town?? They may lose it anyhow, but can't blame them for being concerned about their communities, can we? If in fact this is the reason for voting the way they did.  I don't know, I'm only guessing, but makes sense to me.  Yes, Howard voted yes, but they had nothing to lose and everything to gain.  Some took into consideration the raise in their taxes, but I read that taxes took a jump higher this year and there isn't a new school to blame, is there?

[srkruzich]

Ok... the board mailed out a flier... if that was the slick foldover... it was LATE!  Should have been out weeks before the vote.  And since when is such a mailing from a governmental body who is responsible to ALL taxpayers given preference to 'folks with kids'.  While the families with children have a vested interest in the outcomes, the fiduciary and legal responsibility of the board is to ALL the taxpayers.

Simply put, when your using OTHER peoples money to provide bells and whistles, the OTHER people that provide the money have the most right to be notified that their money is about to be mugged.

[srkruzich]

  Yes, Howard voted yes, but they had nothing to lose and everything to gain.  Some took into consideration the raise in their taxes, but I read that taxes took a jump higher this year and there isn't a new school to blame, is there?

true but how much money can the county suck out of peoples pockets before they bankrupt the folks that support it.

[Sarah]

I've been reading posts, studying "between the lines" and here is my opinion, for what it's worth.  Howard's voters carried most of the YES votes.  The majority of the NO's were from the other towns in the district.  Do you suppose they voted NO, not because of the raise in taxes or the cost of a new school, but because they did not want to lose the school in their town?? They may lose it anyhow, but can't blame them for being concerned about their communities, can we? If in fact this is the reason for voting the way they did.  I don't know, I'm only guessing, but makes sense to me.  Yes, Howard voted yes, but they had nothing to lose and everything to gain.  Some took into consideration the raise in their taxes, but I read that taxes took a jump higher this year and there isn't a new school to blame, is there?

I agree that was a lot of the reason.  I think they don't want to lose their schools and I think that was stated as a reason many times.  But even with the new school, Howard may lose the school too.  Just because a new school is built I don't think that will matter to the state if they decide to come in, but it has crossed my mind that part of the reason the new school was being proposed was that perhaps the idea had crossed some minds that if they built a new school and made themselves look inviting to the state, that if they did consolidate school districts, that perhaps they would consolidate them to Howard bringing in more Federal money into this school system.

[Patriot]

I've been reading posts, studying "between the lines" and here is my opinion, for what it's worth.  Howard's voters carried most of the YES votes.  The majority of the NO's were from the other towns in the district.  Do you suppose they voted NO, not because of the raise in taxes or the cost of a new school, but because they did not want to lose the school in their town?? They may lose it anyhow, but can't blame them for being concerned about their communities, can we? If in fact this is the reason for voting the way they did.  I don't know, I'm only guessing, but makes sense to me.  Yes, Howard voted yes, but they had nothing to lose and everything to gain.  Some took into consideration the raise in their taxes, but I read that taxes took a jump higher this year and there isn't a new school to blame, is there?

Very possible you are right, flo.  But the higher taxes with the school bond might well have made matters even worse financially for the taxpayer.

On another matter, when do we begin to see that as government grows, the rest of us shrink.  This country was not built on the ability of the government to grow and 'make things happen', but on the ingenuity and drive of the citizenry to provide for itself.  Bureaucrats and elected officials sometimes think they have all the answers.  All they lack is more of the taxpayer's money and more bureaucrats/agencies/boards/plans/programs etc.  Ain't necessarily so.

[Diane Amberg]

Has Kansas said what, if anything, they plan to do? Have any of you talked to anyone who would know? States don't have any money now either.

[srkruzich]

Has Kansas said what, if anything, they plan to do? Have any of you talked to anyone who would know? States don't have any money now either.

Well you know something, if the states don't have the money, they need to cut back.  This crap of sucking more tax dollars when they blow the money their given, has to stop.  The feds are out of control, the states are out of control. 

[Patriot]

Has Kansas said what, if anything, they plan to do? Have any of you talked to anyone who would know? States don't have any money now either.

As of a week or two ago, the governor has asked and house committee is re-studying the issues of consolidation all over the state.  o Consolidation is seen as a way to save the state money in the long run.  It's gonna happen.  Just a matter of when.