|
Editorial: Analyzing the bond vote result
Op-Ed · February 23, 2017
From what we heard from residents in the weeks leading up to the Feb. 7 $19.11 million school bond referendum, it appeared the measure would gain majority support but fall short of the 60-percent supermajority.
We heard three concerns with the plan to build additions at the elementary and high schools in an effort to absorb pupils from the middle school. First, that the bond issue was quite large — the largest request in West Branch history, either for a school or city initiative. Second, that the middle school would be razed when the building is still in relatively good condition. The third, and possibly most important, was that the voters thought it was a lot of information to process in a short amount of time from when the plan for the vote was finalized to the vote itself.
The reason the third concern is so important is because, in every conversation with a not-yet-convinced voter, they still had questions as to the origins of one or multiple parts of the plan. Many voters are still trying to fully understand why the project is so big in scope and price, and simply wanted to withhold voting “yes” pending good answers to their questions. To put it another way, many voted “no” just to give themselves more time to learn. Keep in mind that fewer than a third of the nearly 4,000 eligible voters cast a ballot.
This is important to remember when a handful of proponents turned nasty on social media with insulting and demeaning comments after the two ballot questions came up less than 5 percent shy of the goal.
Numerous people took part in the School Improvement Advisory Committee, sat in on school board meetings or helped promote a “yes” vote and have already received the answers to the same questions asked by many of these hesitant voters.
Multiple times at community forums and on social media a citizen asked “Have you considered …” in regards to the project’s scope or razing the middle school. Each of those voters likely speaks for many who are still trying to weigh the merits of this bond issue.
Just like any plan, it must survive the many what-if questions that come from public scrutiny. Those who genuinely ask to learn are the ones most likely to change their votes. The supporters who have already heard these questions in the planning stages must have patience for those who have not.
Thankfully, cooler heads appeared. We were glad to see supporters extend a friendly hand to opponents, asking “What would it take to earn your support?”
This is a way to work toward a solution, rather than criticize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
