Is the Red and Black In the Red or in the Black?City Schools Seek $12.5 million in New Borrowing

A year ago, we ran a series of posts concerning the Geneva City School District's proposal to shift from two K-5 neighborhood schools to one primary (PreK-2) and one intermediate (3-5) school. The plan was brought to our attention by faculty and staff who were concerned that the effort was misguided in several ways. We don’t deal in leaks and rumors, so we didn’t post until we’d checked out the facts. And when we did, we were compelled to speak out about what we’d found, especially when the Finger Lakes Times was giving the plan a pass.

First, we shared worries that the plan was educationally unsound, and that it was likely to lead to greater disassociation between students, parents, and their school. Second, it was foreseen that there were serious logistical difficulties with such a move: scheduling, bussing, and adequate classroom space would be a problem.

Underlying those concerns, and creating a situation of distrust within which those issues could not easily be discussed or addressed, was the perception that the District administration, in conjunction with favored insider faculty members, was moving full steam ahead in insulated, secretive, non-public meetings.

Sure enough, the Finger Lakes Times towed the "company line" that no decisions had been made and there were no foregone conclusions. But they didn't press, and they didn't ask the hard follow up questions that would have revealed the facts behind the well-controlled sound bites. Despite the newspaper's headline "Nothing Decided" (2/9/09), the final public hearing on the proposal was held March 25th, and the decision passed with the support of five of the seven school board members on April 6th.

In less than two months, the District maintained (according to the resolution that you can read here) "the reconfiguration of the elementary schools will maintain and/or enhance the quality of educational programming for students and will also maintain fiscal discipline during this time of economic uncertainty."

You might wonder, as we do: Has the reconfiguration of the elementary schools enhanced, or at least maintained, the quality of educational programming for students? Did the move maintain "fiscal discipline" during a time of economic uncertainty? While we abhor the concept, we wonder if at least the ends justified the means? Did the perceived Machiavellian maneuvers of the District administration at least pan out?

If so, you wouldn’t think this move would require, in its first year, the pursuit of a $12.5million building project to remedy a lack of classroom space that, apparently, went unnoticed or unplanned for during the very process that the District said was guided by a thorough, responsible, and detail-oriented advisory committee. We wish it was otherwise, but alas, the district is putting just such a request up for a public referendum on March 9, 2010 (one year and one month, to the day, after solemn reassurance to District families and taxpayers public that this wasn’t a ‘done deal’).

Here’s the referendum item:

SPECIAL REFERENDUM
SPECIAL REFERENDUM OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF
GENEVA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special referendum of the qualified voters of the City School District of the City of Geneva, New York, shall be held at Geneva High School, 101 Carter Road, Geneva, New York on Tuesday, March 9, 2010, between the hours of 12:00 o’clock to 9:00 P.M., for the purpose of voting on the following proposition:

PROPOSITION

SHALL THE BOND RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF GENEVA, NEW YORK, DATED JANUARY 19, 2010, AUTHORIZING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTING OF ADDITION TO, CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF, SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES, VARIOUS SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN ORIGINAL FURNISHINGS, EQUIPMENT, AND APPARATUS AND OTHER INCIDENTAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR SUCH CONSTRUCTION AND SCHOOL USE, AT AN ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AGGREGATE COST OF $12,500,000; AND PROVIDING THAT SUCH COSTS SHALL BE RAISED BY THE LEVY OF A TAX TO BE COLLECTED IN ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS WITH SUCH TAX TO BE OFFSET BY STATE AID AVAILABLE THEREFOR, AND IN ANTICIPATION OF SUCH TAX, DEBT OBLIGATIONS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS MAY BE NECESSARY, NOT TO EXCEED SUCH ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AGGREGATE COST, SHALL BE ISSUED, AND, IF THE PROPOSITION FOR THE APPROVAL OF SUCH BOND RESOLUTION SHALL HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY AT LEAST A SIXTY PERCENT VOTE, SUCH OBLIGATIONS MAY BE ISSUED IN EXCESS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT LIMIT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAW, ALL BE APPROVED?”

For the complete referendum, click here.

It's probably wise for the Board of Education to separate the vote for $12.5million of new debt from the May vote for the election of new Board members. Is it to cover their lack of foresight—or, the old bait and switch? Whether it was poor planning or misleading the public, or something else, perhaps board members feared that residents who care about accountability and fiscal responsibility would not re-elect board members who supported this ill-fated reconfiguration.

In upcoming posts we will delve into this issue in more detail, fully presenting this case study of bait and switch. But we are again reminded that one of the values in public, inclusive decision-making processes (which the reconfiguration debacle certainly was not) is the ability of governing board to be clued in to 'public intelligence' on critical issues. We see what happens when those in power think they know better than those they are elected to represent. Unfortunately, it's the represented that end up footing the bill for their representatives’ mistakes.