By Brian Knox | Published Sunday, November 8, 2009
One thing is clear after Tuesday's Decatur school bond election for districtwide maintenance improvements and stadium renovations: voters did not support the package presented to them. After that, it's a little less clear.
I've heard comments that the bond's landslide defeat, in which 62 percent of voters rejected the proposal, sends a strong message to the school board. The problem is, what exactly is the message?
Let me start with the messages that I think were not sent.
I don't think that the majority of voters believe that the maintenance items on the list are not important or do not need to be addressed.
I don't think that voters said, "kids are not important to the community."
If these statements were true, then our community would be in serious trouble. But if you look at recent bond election history, local voters supported bond packages for, among other things, a new high school and a new elementary. Our community has shown a willingness to spend money on educating our children and allowing them to attend school in safe and well-maintained facilities.
Let's look at what I think are the possible messages from the bond defeat.
1. Voters don't want a bond issue for turf. The most common complaint I heard regarding the bond was the turf issue. Many people simply felt that was a "want" and not a "need." I heard comments from some people that they would have supported the maintenance part of the bond, but they were voting against it because of the turf.
2. It's the economy, stupid. This term was first coined by James Carville in President Bill Clinton's successful 1992 campaign against George H.W. Bush, but it might as well have applied to the 2009 Decatur bond campaign. With the economy still recovering from last year's collapse, any increase in taxes is looked at negatively. The bond was expected to increase taxes $3.19 a month for the owner of a $100,000 home.
3. Fixing things is your job. Another complaint that surfaced during the last few weeks is that many of the maintenance items on the list of bond projects should have already been addressed with money the district already has. In other words, some voters didn't feel like the district adequately addressed these needs in a timely manner.
The board will now have the task of figuring out where to go from here. Do they regroup and bring another bond package forward in the spring, similar to what Bridgeport did with their two bond elections this year? Does that package include turf? Does it include separate propositions for maintenance and stadium improvements? Or do they simply take another look at the maintenance needs and try to tackle them one by one using current budget funds?
These are questions the board will have to answer.
I'm sure they would love to hear what you have to say.
