The remnant of Today Newspaper has a feature today regarding Larry Lewis's response to the defeat of the district's bond proposal:
Dr Lewis believes that if enough parents had received the district's message, the opposition and their motivations wouldn't have mattered. "If enough parents vote, we don't have a thing to worry about," he said. "Even with all the information, our parents don't vote. We're looking at about 2,400 votes and 1,360 early votes. When we get the overall numbers I'll be surprised if we had 500-600 parents vote. That's the thing we need to do a better job on. First, how do we get the parents involved in their children's education? Then we have to get them to vote." He said a group sold their opposition to the bond in return for political support in upcoming elections.
Let's see if I have that straight. The majority of Lancaster voters are lazy; and won't be moved to the ballot box. Another huge number of voters are stupid, and have been fooled by a few voters who are just evil -- as evidenced by the fact that these few disagree with Dr Lewis. There are only a few hundred voters who are energetic, wise, virtuous, and above all, obedient ... acquiesent to Dr Lewis's will.
I'm not sure this is exactly a winning message to take into another election, but if that's how the man feels -- perception becomes reality.
But just why was Dr Lewis unable to persuade anybody? One thing even his detractors will confess is that Dr Lewis certainly spent enough money, put in enough personal face-to-face time, and tried really really hard.
He's not lazy.
Let's consider the scope of the failure here. Even after Dr Lewis and his supporters repeatedly spent a ton of time and money they still failed to turn out the "base" of support he claims to believe is lurking in the community. In three successive bond campaigns Dr Lewis has promoted an identical "tear down" plan for the district's elementary schools. His supporting Political Action Committees have taken out full page ads in Today Newspapers, and multiple ads in Belo's "Neighbors" weekly. The PAC had huge signs in yards and along roadways all over town. They mailed out slick advertisements to every postal customer in the district including endorsements from county commissioner John Wiley Price, Senator Royce West, and Mayor Joe Tillotson.
(Excuse me, but just exactly who is selling just exactly what in return for political support in upcoming elections here? )
The district itself dared skirt the line against electioneering. Dr Lewis directed the district website to post "informational" material about the bond -- much of it deceptive. (For instance, using the term "new" schools instead of "replacement"; suggesting the HB1 tax reductions would RESULT from a "yes" vote on the bond rather than arrive independently of such a vote; and misquoting the "current" tax rate at $1.74 when the central appraisal district had already posted $1.40. ) In both fall and spring the headline of his "community" newsletters regarded the need for the bond; and no such newsletters were published when a bond is NOT in the offing. Huge "your bond funds in use, thank you Lancaster" signs went up on school properties where the 2004 bonds were finally being applied, and "future site of your school" signs went up on property where the developer hasn't even finished draining the site. Even tax-payer funded city newsletters were co-opted into advertising for the bond. Dr Lewis and his staff spent innumerable hours in churches, town hall meetings, joint meetings with the city, talking to business groups, appearing in front of TV cameras.
Three times we've been through this.
Thousands of dollars and hundreds of LISD employee man-hours were committted to Dr Lewis's "tear down" propositions. He's taken money from the Allen Group, the Corgan architects, the Gallagher Construction company, from John Wiley Price's re-election campaign ... the Superintendent's "tear down" plan collected support from everybody but the voters. He's dragged out the city manager, the mayor, the Lancaster Economic Development Council, various city councilmen, all to do nothing but spend an evening nodding their heads in agreement while Dr Lewis talks. He talked to parents. He talked to civic clubs. He talked and talked and promised and cajoled and wheedled. He's begged, he's borrowed, and he's -- publicly and loudly -- prayed.
All that talk, all that time and all that money; every word, every dime, every minute, now been proven wasted.
Wasted time and money doesn't discourage Larry Lewis, of course. Hey! It's not HIS money.
As for the time, well, he spent most of it in the spotlight with a microphone in his hand. From his perspective, maybe it wasn't such a waste of time, after all.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The Taxpayers Involved In Governement Education Reform (T.I.G.E.R.)s are a shoestring, grassroots political action committee in Lancaster. For the last three elections the TIGERs have gathered a few bucks each from a few hundred donors. With that limited funded the TIGERS sent out a few postcards discussing the Lancaster ISD's three recent school bond proposals.
Each election, the bonds were defeated.
All that the TIGERs have done is channel the voices of the Lancaster community. We didn't --couldn't --- create this sentiment. We simply help people in the community talk to each other, ask questions and find their polling place. The district refuses to hear, much less answer, the questions, so they keep getting surprised by the election results.
Will the community support building more schools, new schools? Yes, sure. Will voters favor demolishing existing schools – as they’ve already been done on one campus?. No, no, and no. Clearly, Lancaster is not Highland Park, and "tear downs" aren't a popular idea in our community. Three times we've been asked to approve a plan involving "tear downs" and three times we've rejected that plan. When will voters approve MORE buildings on NEW sites? As soon as that proposition hits the ballots.
Is the community willing to tax itself to the max to build new schools? We're within 11 cents of state tax caps -- and our valuations will support a $60 million dollar or so bond package. Will we go to the max for our kids? Yes, sure. Will we approve a package that asks for a blank check -- 30, 80, 100 million more than our credit limit? No, no and no. Three times we've been offered a bond package that exceed our debt cap and three times we’ve rejected it. Our board is obviously not shy about frequent bond elections. When will voters approve maximum tax rates? As soon as proposed maximum is really the max.
Is the community willing to borrow for a new "teacher resource center", a "maintenance center", a bus barn, stadium renovations, and short term buys of computers, staff cars, and grounds keeping equipment? No, no, and no. Three times those proposals have been set before the voters and three times the voters have rejected those plans. When will voters put children first? When the propositions set the same priority.
Has the district used its 2004 bond funds wisely? For instance, when a $14 million dollar estimate for renovation works drew bids costing nearly $30 million, did the district attempt at least half of the renovation work? Did they go back to a citizens’ oversight committee to prioritize the projects with the money they had? No, no, and no. Oh, the money was spent LEGALLY, sure. It's legal to use 30-year loans to pay for choir robes, squad cars, computer software -- it's legal. But wise? And are those the reasons voters approved the 2004 loans? No. The point of separate propositions is to ensure each project and each school has a separate approved budget limit so funds don't slosh from one purpose today to another purpose tomorrow. When will voters approve bond propositions? When the vote makes a difference to the projects.
Is this some kind of anti-school, anti-child, anti-tax, anti-Superintendent effort? No, no, no, and no. The biggest problem our voters have with our superintendent is he insists on having his own way over the wishes of the voters. It's certainly not a racial thing. A black incumbant trustee who opposed the bond defeated a black challenger who supported it. A white incumbant trustee who supported the bond lost to a white challenger running on a "good stewardship" and accountability -- anti-bond -- platform. Will we support Dr Lewis? When he supports us.
Are the TIGERS going to defeat another bond package next November? If the proposals are the same a fourth time, the TIGERs will not have any difficulty whatever in continuing to channel the existing voter sentiments. But if the district comes back with four or five or so small packages dedicated to fixing existing schools, building more new classrooms, and focused on children first -- the TIGERs will be leading the effort to PASS the proposals.
Each election, the bonds were defeated.
All that the TIGERs have done is channel the voices of the Lancaster community. We didn't --couldn't --- create this sentiment. We simply help people in the community talk to each other, ask questions and find their polling place. The district refuses to hear, much less answer, the questions, so they keep getting surprised by the election results.
Will the community support building more schools, new schools? Yes, sure. Will voters favor demolishing existing schools – as they’ve already been done on one campus?. No, no, and no. Clearly, Lancaster is not Highland Park, and "tear downs" aren't a popular idea in our community. Three times we've been asked to approve a plan involving "tear downs" and three times we've rejected that plan. When will voters approve MORE buildings on NEW sites? As soon as that proposition hits the ballots.
Is the community willing to tax itself to the max to build new schools? We're within 11 cents of state tax caps -- and our valuations will support a $60 million dollar or so bond package. Will we go to the max for our kids? Yes, sure. Will we approve a package that asks for a blank check -- 30, 80, 100 million more than our credit limit? No, no and no. Three times we've been offered a bond package that exceed our debt cap and three times we’ve rejected it. Our board is obviously not shy about frequent bond elections. When will voters approve maximum tax rates? As soon as proposed maximum is really the max.
Is the community willing to borrow for a new "teacher resource center", a "maintenance center", a bus barn, stadium renovations, and short term buys of computers, staff cars, and grounds keeping equipment? No, no, and no. Three times those proposals have been set before the voters and three times the voters have rejected those plans. When will voters put children first? When the propositions set the same priority.
Has the district used its 2004 bond funds wisely? For instance, when a $14 million dollar estimate for renovation works drew bids costing nearly $30 million, did the district attempt at least half of the renovation work? Did they go back to a citizens’ oversight committee to prioritize the projects with the money they had? No, no, and no. Oh, the money was spent LEGALLY, sure. It's legal to use 30-year loans to pay for choir robes, squad cars, computer software -- it's legal. But wise? And are those the reasons voters approved the 2004 loans? No. The point of separate propositions is to ensure each project and each school has a separate approved budget limit so funds don't slosh from one purpose today to another purpose tomorrow. When will voters approve bond propositions? When the vote makes a difference to the projects.
Is this some kind of anti-school, anti-child, anti-tax, anti-Superintendent effort? No, no, no, and no. The biggest problem our voters have with our superintendent is he insists on having his own way over the wishes of the voters. It's certainly not a racial thing. A black incumbant trustee who opposed the bond defeated a black challenger who supported it. A white incumbant trustee who supported the bond lost to a white challenger running on a "good stewardship" and accountability -- anti-bond -- platform. Will we support Dr Lewis? When he supports us.
Are the TIGERS going to defeat another bond package next November? If the proposals are the same a fourth time, the TIGERs will not have any difficulty whatever in continuing to channel the existing voter sentiments. But if the district comes back with four or five or so small packages dedicated to fixing existing schools, building more new classrooms, and focused on children first -- the TIGERs will be leading the effort to PASS the proposals.