Help Wanted Writing Petition
So I have found an on-line site to create a petition. I would also like to try to circulate a paper petition at schools who have no PTAs (and may not have a central information center). So I need help with wordsmithing the petition as well as circulating a paper petition.
I wrote a long e-mail to the Board outlining my concerns about BTA III. Most of them concern (and here's a surprise) accountability and oversight. Here's what I wrote:
"It is painfully clear that facilities issues are truly damaging the ability of this district to move forward. If I, as a member of the CAC, had been apprised of this in any clear fashion, I would have recommended closing buildings of the poorest conditions and moving programs. That would have been the criteria. (And it's funny because the two things I heard the most as the Committee member in charge of reading and answering e-mail, was that the district should either (1) close the buildings in the worst condition or (2) save the best programs no matter their building condition.) Because of the situation we are in now, we should have closed the worst buildings.
You can go to the public, as David Tucker [district spokesperson] did, and say that we are in this time and place because of some failed levies in the '80s and '90s (and I still can't find the one in the '80s and David hasn't responded to my e-mail request - I did a search at the SPS website and Times/PI websites and cannot find a reference to it). Yes, you could blame all the backlog on the voters but you and I both know that wouldn't be true.
The truth is that for whatever reason, some Board or Superintendent or Facilities manager or all of them, decided to pull back on basic maintenance. It got worst as all untended maintenance does and especially in older buildings where age is already a strike working against upkeep. The district decided the money needed to go elsewhere. But, as I stated to you at the last Board meeting, it is part of your duty and part of a good, functioning classroom for classes to be in safe, secure buildings. So that "savings" really was illusionary.
You will have the unenviable job of trying to explain closing schools one minute and reopening other schools the next. You will have to explain how the district knew that the population growth was coming (and there are documents to show this) and yet did nothing. You will have to explain how this district kept dropping the amount it spends on basic maintenance from the General Fund until it is under 1% and now basic maintenance has become much larger (and much more expensive). And you will have to do this against the backdrop of high unemployment and a sagging economy.
I am going to write, with the help of people who visit the blog, Save Seattle Schools, an on-line petition. We will be asking parents to sign it and it will be asking you for a couple of things. One, to commit to the provisions of the maintenance and capital audits that you paid for. Two, provide clear lines of accountability via a detailed accounting of public funds spent on BEX and BTA at least 3 times a year to the public. (A third thing would be shake up the personnel in Facilities but I think the State Auditor's report might trigger that.) There might be more but I am not writing it alone."
Okay, the biggest issue to ask you about is this; should the petition reflect the idea that if the Board does nothing to shore up parent/public confidence in the district's handling of facilities, that the undersigned will not vote in BTA III?
Or, is it better to just ask people to sign a petition asking the Board to ask for accountability from the district so that voters will feel secure in voting for BTA III?
The carrot or the stick? "You have our support if we see you care about these concerns" OR "if we see no commitment from you for accountability for these monies, we will vote against the levy."
My personal feeling is that more parents will feel comfortable with the carrot but we can certainly mention the stick in the petition explanation. (Meaning, tell parents that we are asking for the accountability that the district promises and it's up to the Board to enforce it. But we could add a sentence that parents are voters who could show their displeasure by not voting for the levy or not voting at all.)
Then, once that is decided, what to ask for?
Above I mentioned,
(1) at least 3 times a year, a simple yet clear and accurate accounting of BEX and BTA spent (how much was there at the beginning, what it was spent on, the state of each project - on-time, on-budget -what projects are dropped or added, etc. and
(2) a commitment to the recommendations in the audits done on the capital and maintenance programs this last year. The Board would have to pass policy that explains this to the Superintendent and staff with enforcement benchmarks.
The Board would need to make their intent clear BEFORE the vote.
(I also want the Board to get the money to Nova and SBOC in Meany right now via movement of money from BEX III because of the promises made to those communities and the state of the building. However, I worry this will be confusing to parents so I would leave it out.)
I want this petition to be short but clear. I would like it to get on-line this week and have handouts about it at all the community meetings (I can make 2 but not all.)
Please give me your thoughts on what it should ask for and if you think it should be carrot or stick.
I wrote a long e-mail to the Board outlining my concerns about BTA III. Most of them concern (and here's a surprise) accountability and oversight. Here's what I wrote:
"It is painfully clear that facilities issues are truly damaging the ability of this district to move forward. If I, as a member of the CAC, had been apprised of this in any clear fashion, I would have recommended closing buildings of the poorest conditions and moving programs. That would have been the criteria. (And it's funny because the two things I heard the most as the Committee member in charge of reading and answering e-mail, was that the district should either (1) close the buildings in the worst condition or (2) save the best programs no matter their building condition.) Because of the situation we are in now, we should have closed the worst buildings.
You can go to the public, as David Tucker [district spokesperson] did, and say that we are in this time and place because of some failed levies in the '80s and '90s (and I still can't find the one in the '80s and David hasn't responded to my e-mail request - I did a search at the SPS website and Times/PI websites and cannot find a reference to it). Yes, you could blame all the backlog on the voters but you and I both know that wouldn't be true.
The truth is that for whatever reason, some Board or Superintendent or Facilities manager or all of them, decided to pull back on basic maintenance. It got worst as all untended maintenance does and especially in older buildings where age is already a strike working against upkeep. The district decided the money needed to go elsewhere. But, as I stated to you at the last Board meeting, it is part of your duty and part of a good, functioning classroom for classes to be in safe, secure buildings. So that "savings" really was illusionary.
You will have the unenviable job of trying to explain closing schools one minute and reopening other schools the next. You will have to explain how the district knew that the population growth was coming (and there are documents to show this) and yet did nothing. You will have to explain how this district kept dropping the amount it spends on basic maintenance from the General Fund until it is under 1% and now basic maintenance has become much larger (and much more expensive). And you will have to do this against the backdrop of high unemployment and a sagging economy.
I am going to write, with the help of people who visit the blog, Save Seattle Schools, an on-line petition. We will be asking parents to sign it and it will be asking you for a couple of things. One, to commit to the provisions of the maintenance and capital audits that you paid for. Two, provide clear lines of accountability via a detailed accounting of public funds spent on BEX and BTA at least 3 times a year to the public. (A third thing would be shake up the personnel in Facilities but I think the State Auditor's report might trigger that.) There might be more but I am not writing it alone."
Okay, the biggest issue to ask you about is this; should the petition reflect the idea that if the Board does nothing to shore up parent/public confidence in the district's handling of facilities, that the undersigned will not vote in BTA III?
Or, is it better to just ask people to sign a petition asking the Board to ask for accountability from the district so that voters will feel secure in voting for BTA III?
The carrot or the stick? "You have our support if we see you care about these concerns" OR "if we see no commitment from you for accountability for these monies, we will vote against the levy."
My personal feeling is that more parents will feel comfortable with the carrot but we can certainly mention the stick in the petition explanation. (Meaning, tell parents that we are asking for the accountability that the district promises and it's up to the Board to enforce it. But we could add a sentence that parents are voters who could show their displeasure by not voting for the levy or not voting at all.)
Then, once that is decided, what to ask for?
Above I mentioned,
(1) at least 3 times a year, a simple yet clear and accurate accounting of BEX and BTA spent (how much was there at the beginning, what it was spent on, the state of each project - on-time, on-budget -what projects are dropped or added, etc. and
(2) a commitment to the recommendations in the audits done on the capital and maintenance programs this last year. The Board would have to pass policy that explains this to the Superintendent and staff with enforcement benchmarks.
The Board would need to make their intent clear BEFORE the vote.
(I also want the Board to get the money to Nova and SBOC in Meany right now via movement of money from BEX III because of the promises made to those communities and the state of the building. However, I worry this will be confusing to parents so I would leave it out.)
I want this petition to be short but clear. I would like it to get on-line this week and have handouts about it at all the community meetings (I can make 2 but not all.)
Please give me your thoughts on what it should ask for and if you think it should be carrot or stick.
Comments
I don't see the district or the board as being particularly receptive to the carrot approach: the stick is much more "in your face" and more likely to provoke a (non-response) response. In the end I think the chances of getting the action we want are slim at best regardless of the approach, but I give the stick a puncher's chance, and the carrot exactly zero chance. One person's opinion.
All amounts of cordiality, reasoning, common sense or courtesy got me nowhere.
I was advised by my brother-in-law who is a journalist and covered education in much larger cities than Seattle that no amount of reasoning, logic, or facts would sway a school board. Only pure pressure would produce a result.
Based on the configuration of the current School Board – the majority more political in ambition than student and/or family focused – I would vote for the stick.
Anyway to get into the non bldg issues of the closer like the big scramble that we call APP splits... that were rolled into capacity managment to close blds that didn't need to be like TTM?
The petition would also draw media attention to what is happening which would cause the school board and superintendent to respond appropriately and in a timely manner to our demands.
I vote for the carrot.
Now, how big of a stick can we carry?
It [the carrot] will require signing the petition, speaking in front of the board, writing letters to our board members and sending e-mails to our superintendent.
Many concerned people did all of these things last year over any number of issues and look what it got them.
In the current climate, I'm guessing there's a better than average chance that a levy will fail without our involvement. It seems like this might be one of the few levers we have to apply to move the powers that be. A stick that big doesn't fall into your hands very often.
Melissa, I have been around a long while and I cannot recall any capital bond failures in the 80's. They used to be bonds but switched to capital levies and I cannot recall why. And blaming the current maintenance backlog on bond failures in the 1980's and 90's is a total red herring. The capital bond failures in the 1990's had to do with size and $$'s requested. Ballard was the poster child because it was supposed to be renovated as a part of the bond that redid Franklin. It wasn't done and the District's credibility took a huge hit. It was rerun two or three times,changed to a levy and something smaller passed. It is disheartening that we are in the same place as so long ago.
This is a huge game of 'chicken' and it's our children who suffer. Sure, it's easy for the OP to say she won't vote for the levy. Her kid is in a brand new building and graduates in one or two years?
And the rest of us? Those whose schools will need major maintenance over the next years?
Don't play the game unless you're willing for our children to lose.
They keep asking for more money and then spend on the wrong things; they keep saying "excellence for all" and then tear apart the most successful programs in the name of improvements and budget concerns; they talk about more access to better programs and then limit the programs to the select few in the neighborhood; they claim ridiculous savings by closing schools, with complete disregard for the population figures in front of them, and then need to spend EXTRA money to reopen other buildings.
Our children are already losing and it's time to cauterize the wound. I have to believe that a big enough stick, thousands upon thousands of signatures promising not to vote for a levy that doesn't include accountability and specific expenditures, would have more impact than another carrot.
The Seattle Times is second only to the board in the beatification of MGJ so, regardless of signatures, I wouldn't expect too much actual reporting there. However, some of the TV news programs might take more of an interest if there's an across-the-board call for accountability. No picketing, no screaming parents at meetings; just page after page of names of people who will not approve the levy!
Talking to the board is like talking to a 4-year-old; "we will give you money when you prove you know how to handle it."
stu
And I agree with Stu and Josh. We've tried communicating civilly with this Superintendent and this Board, to no avail.
They tore apart our schools, our programs, moved our kids into even less safe buildings, voted in a crappy math curriculum against our will, rearranged our principals without any community input, fired our teachers, closed our schools only to have to reopen them, hired more admin staff when they said there was no money, ignored demographics, data and the basic decency of LISTENING to the parents of SPS.
Enough is enough.
Imagine the headlines it will generate: "Seattle Parents Threaten to Vote Down School Funding Levy"!
Seattle will make national news -- "Battle in Seattle Take 2!"
Imagine!
Unfortunately this may be the only way to get this Board and Supt to listen and act responsibly.
When we were voting for BEX III and I came out against the list, I certainly got it from "you'll hurt the kids". In fact, that's what a Board member whispered to me right before we went on the air to discuss BEX III on KUOW. Danny Westneat of the Times told me that "parents don't care where the money is spent, we just want the money" (he now claims he didn't say that but you don't forget that kind of comment). I was told by some here, "We'll pass the bond AND then get the Board to change the list." I said that was nonsense and it was. In fact, many voters (both parents and community members) were quite surprised when they got schooled on what they voted for at Denny/Sealth. The district is not going to listen after the fact.
The proof is readily available that the district has not and is not managing facilities and the money provided for it well. Just a Mom, what would you have us do?
We have to put this one on the School Board. They set policy and are supposed to do oversight, but haven't. Tens of millions in cost overrunns at places like Ballard and Garfield is outrageous enough to warrant strict changes in policy. Yet, it hasn't. The press has ignored it, so has the district, while they tap the Gen. Maintenance fund to cover the overruns.
I've watched the Board go on at length about how we need to close schools to save 3 to 5 million a year, then approve 11 Million in cost overruns on one project at the same meeting, without a question or even a whimper.
We need Board Members who, instead of shining us on about raising the achievement gap and getting all our kids into college, will promise to spend our money wisely and actually know how to monitor cashflow and care enough to do it.
Too many career incompetents remain after levies fail. My 2 cents.
1) they ignore us and the levy goes for a vote
2) they promise to listen to our concerns and we agree to support the levy - then they renege on their promises if the levy passes
It seems like even this might be a futile effort unless we get some media attention and broader public support in our call for accountability. Unfortunately, last year demonstrated that neither the folks on this blog, nor large numbers of involved individuals can throw enough weight around to significantly change the course of this ship.
To make it stick, we need a much broader public demand for accountability and a loud and clear promise to the public to be accountable. Can we generate that kind of pressure? I don't know. Certainly there will be much discussion as to whether families can afford 200-300M in this economy. Add a group of people concerned about children and education that openly challenge the wisdom of handing over more money to be mismanaged - we certainly might drawn more attention to our concerns. Is it enough? I don't know.
At any rate it seems to me that the real stick is not whether we can influence the Pass/Fail on the levy, but whether we get get enough people to pay attention to SPS that they would hesitate to break another promise - because without greater scrutiny, I anticipate they'll tell us what we want to hear to get what they want and ignore their commitments afterward. Business as usual.
I think this is just as important as the board election, if not more. We the voters do control the purse strings at some level, and if we have the numbers to forcefully remind them of that, well, that's one of the biggest sticks we have. I'd rather vote no than put my kid in private school...
That said, I think the stick is implicit in the carrot and if they don't get that, it's their problem.
Melissa, I think this is generally true, however, bailouts are unpopular at the moment, and for good reason. The top tier gets money with few strings attached and almost zero accountability. SPS is trying to ride with the big dogs in this regard: just keep giving us money. We'll say one thing and do something else.
It's like bailing out your drunk uncle. When do you stop enabling and put away the check book?
This should be in the hands of the voters. Use that power. Given their tradition of lying about savings while blowing millions, SPS should not be allowed to once again rely on fear or trust to make this pass.
Patrick: Good point. FYI, 60% required for bond proposals; simple majority of 50% for capital levies.
Seattle voters are more thoughtful on how they tax themselves. Voting against mismanagement isn't an act based on emotion or fear. Voting against would have to be based on goals designed to stop an established pattern of abuse and mismanagement.
Reform is a loaded word right now. Look at the health care debate. Reform wrapped up in a bailout is on the hot seat right now, so in writing a petition, be very clear on what you wish to accomplish.
Based on history, I'd go for the big stick.
SPS is the quintessential "bad dog" that has learned that it will never get the correction, no matter what is does, and will get all the positive reinforcement for a ton of bad behavior.
And, as with all "bad dogs" the real problem is the "bad owner" who let the situation get so out of hand in the first place. So, perhaps, instead of a stick, we should try a choke chain and brush up on our own "training."
Melissa...just how quickly can the levy be voted on again if it fails in November?
In the 1990's the district came back to the voters at least four times in one year. I still am unable to do a direct link.The URL is below. What was true then remains true today.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941110&slug=1941047
A correction... the school construction measures were put to the voters 5 times in two years. Not four times in one year.
Another Mom is right; they voted 4 times in a year (although getting the exact dates and amounts has been difficult and I am still working on it). It is the cost of each election that the district worries about and then the taint that a failed levy gets.
I find it interesting that the district spokesperson says the district fell behind because of failed levies and that's how we started getting behind.
Well, that may be how it started but wouldn't you think if you were falling behind that you wouldn't reduce the money you spend on maintenance? And that's what they've done. They steadily reduced the money in the face of a growing backlog. Again, where's the best practices and accountability in that?
I'll be frank. I don't believe the Board will agree to anything, evidence notwithstanding.
My honest belief is that if the levy failed once, it would be a tremendous handslap+wake-up call to the district and the Board. I think they need it. The evidence is there.
But it will take some courage to stand up and say no. Each of us would have to be willing to endure (and believe me, you will) the slings and arrows of other parents and the powers that be. But I truly believe we can be the difference in righting this particular ship in SPS.
As we proceed, should we proceed, we need a very simple, right to the point, single page listing ,of the kinds of waste and lack of accountability. There should be:
Some Sort Of Heading
Promise Truth
Promise Truth
Promise Truth
Promise Truth
More money is just more money to waste.
No funds without fundamental change
Accountability Now!
It's the waste that'll bring in the no votes. Design a simple campaign and, before taking it to the public, take it to the board and superintendent...big stick!
stu
Our format will be:
Myth....
Fact....
Short, succinct, with references provided to support our data...
I like Stu's suggestion:
Promise....
Reality/Truth...
Promise....
Reality/Truth...
Its a bit hard to argue with the facts, when they're presented in black and white, with references/sources to support the data/claims...
I think what you are doing is cool, Melissa... and I think only the stick approach will work...
And, after all the delays etc in maintenance work, I dont think our kids are going to suffer substantially more with this strategy... and in my opinion further delay would be worth it, if you manage to get change/accountability happening...
I don't know if this helps matters but I searched the Seattle Times archives and found the following:
Sept '92 $695 million bond proposal to renovate/rebuild 52 schools failed
November '92 put up same measure failed
February '94 downsized to $339 million bond rebuild/remodel 21 schools plus memorial stadium upgrade failed
Nov. '94 $332 million bond failed
February '95 $330 million capital LEVY 19 schools remodel/rebuild PASS
1998 $150 million capital levy described in Times as, "...long overdue fixes and upgrades in virtually every school in the district." Sounds like deferred maintenance. I could not find a record of it passing.
If I, as a member of the CAC, had been apprised of this in any clear fashion, I would have recommended closing buildings of the poorest conditions and moving programs. That would have been the criteria.
Melissa,
That's exactly what they did in West Seattle under the label of Capacity Management.
They closed the Genesse Hill building which was in the worst condition of any West Seattle school and moved the Pathfinder program to the Cooper building which has the highest maintenance rating in West Seattle.
Their choice was not based on capacity or quality of education. It was about facilities management. I feel they were short-sighted since they had to move students into portables at Lafayette and Schmitz Park to make up for the lost capacity at Cooper.
If I had the Cooper case put to us, I would have had to see the program and its stats myself but from a value-added stance (is the program working, albeit slowly, for its population), I would have said no.
My poorly stated point was that I would have weighed building condition a lot more had I known the backlog was so great. And we would have made choices balance with that knowledge. I agree that the last round of closures was about capacity management and not program worth.
I really wasn't trying to re-open the Cooper closure issue.
The point I was trying to make was they did consider building condition, and gave an example where they moved a program they valued from a poor facility.
Most importantly, I was advocating for a more holistic and long-range view. There are a number of projects that should have been planned better. For instance redoing the floors at Sealth as part of BEX II, and then tearing them up to redo the heating system a couple years later in BEX III.
No answer.