To my surprise & excitement, the recent operating referendum proposed by Marshall Public Schools has been shot down, and I wanted to explain why I voted "no."
Take this all with a grain of salt, because 1) I'm not a property owner and probably won't be one soon, 2) I'm relatively unfamiliar with referendum history in the Marshall area, and 3) I'm relatively unfamiliar with referendums in general.
But I feel confident in voting "no." First: some (very) quick details on the referendum itself.
WHAT IT IS
The referendum would endure for 4 years, increase general education revenue by $150 per pupil, and run side by side the existing referendum passed back in 2011. The priorities would be two-fold: improve educational technology and update security infrastructure.
HOW IT WOULD HAVE WORKED
Property tax increase.
WHY I VOTED 'NO'
1. Half of the funding needs should have been budgeted well in advance.
I'm talking technology here. From Moore's Law, to the rise of Apple, to the greatness that is Wikipedia, technology is rapidly changing all. the. time. While often unpredictable how things will change, one thing's for sure: it's going to happen.
That said, there should have been an existing budget in place for technological improvement years ago. I don't know the budget, I don't know the numbers. But there was nothing in the sales pitch to suggest that there was such a budget, or even an admittance that it was just poorly planned and didn't meet unexpected needs. That said, the best I can assume is that tech budgeting didn't happen at all.
And now taxpayers are being asked to make up for that mistake.
2. I felt as if marketing for the referendum was trying to hide that it'd be a tax increase.
Reading through the website, the mailings, the newspaper articles, much time was spent on talking about a net tax decrease. While the actual property tax increase (the true part of the referendum) was barely mentioned at all. Loosely suggesting (in my mind) that this referendum won't raise taxes. Which is technically wrong.
Make no mistake. The referendum was a tax increase. But bond debt refinancing has decreased that tax by a greater margin anyway, and so in conjunction with the referendum, there would have been an overall tax decrease.
But no credit goes to the referendum for that. Regardless of the referendum, taxes would have been lowered. In fact, taxes are even lower now that the measure failed. Even so, throughout the months of marketing, I got this weird, disconcerting vibe that if you wanted your taxes lowered, you should vote 'yes.' Which is sort of misleading. Maybe that's just me, but it's not.
And by the way, telling me "Taxes are going to be lowered anyway" is a poor justification for passing a referendum.
Playing a pretty hefty role in the case for the referendum, promotional material was very clear that area schools were also voting on referendums, and that several were already in place.
In short, "Hey, they're doing it -- so should we!"
But I care neither about how many schools are doing it, nor how many pass. If it's such a good deal, there should be much better reasons to convince me. Until I hear those, I'm not going to succumb to what I think is a bad idea just because other people are doing it.
4. I get this unsettling vibe that all referendums are inherently good.
And I hate that. Because it's just not true.
I heard virtually no public opposition to the referendum in the press or anywhere else (maybe that's my own fault). It was all skipping through daisies, free unicorn rides, and candy for everyone.
But if something's so darn good that no one has any criticism or skepticism for it, it's probably not that darn good. At least from my experience.
5. I felt uncomfortable supporting another referendum to fund a broken system.
Easy stab back: "So, why are you punishing the schools? It's not their fault."
True. But messages are sent through the polls. The message is this: Something's got to be done to prevent the need for future referendums. I have ideas of where to start, but those are for a different day.
I really do sympathize with the district upon hearing about the results of the vote. But I can't regret voting 'no.'
Perhaps next time, the two items of technology and safety should not be paired together. I did see some justification for additional funding for security measures, mainly because of unpredictable, awful events that happened recently. But combining that 'need' with something many perceived as more of a 'want' probably held a lot of people back.
I know there's a need for money in the schools right now. I know the people who put the referendum together sincerely felt a need for what they were asking. But in the end, I still wasn't persuaded.
0 comments:
Post a Comment