Letter to the Editor |
| April 18, 2008 Open letter to the Mountain Home School Board, members of CARE, and others who voted in favor of the school millage increase: The April 8th election results have now been certified, and the numbers show that your side won. Your victory was a real squeaker, though – those extra 69 out of 6,393 total votes (about 1.1%) gave you an edge, not a clear mandate from the electorate. A number of people have asked us to request a recount, but because we trust in the sanctity of the ballot box, and were witnesses to the final vote tally at the courthouse, we will not contest the outcome of this election. But BCFT will be watching. We will watch the expenditures connected with this new bond issue very carefully, and question anything that appears to be out of line. We will inquire from time to time how much excess tax revenue the new millage has generated, and ask – again – that this excess be used to reduce the district’s debt. We will conduct random inspections of known structural problem spots and insist that prompt action be taken to correct those deficiencies. Once the first five years of the new bond contract have passed, and extra principal payments are allowed, we will expect whoever is sitting on the school board at that time to make those extra payments to retire the debt early. There is no question that it is important to look toward, and plan for, the future – but it must be done responsibly, both fiscally and morally. Our challenge to you as you move forward is to remember just how close this vote really was: almost as many people were against it as were for it. Let this realization help you choose the path to follow. Here are a few other things to keep in mind:
Bottom line? The voters have spoken, and we accept their verdict. While BCFT is undeniably disappointed at the outcome of this election, we take great pride in knowing that our involvement increased awareness of the issue and motivated record numbers of voters to turn out at the polls. Sincerely, Frank
& Suzan Kaye |
Responses |
From Dr. Scott Smith ----- Original Message ---- Mr. Kaye I am frankly disappointed in the tone of your letter, I find an animosity there that I do not understand nor believe is deserved by this board or the community that supported the issue. I would think that our previous conversations would have you believe that the board and myself share many of the conservative values of our citizens both socially and fiscally. I have tried to give the BCFT every benefit of the doubt through this entire process in that you are trying to promote conservative taxation through representation and accountability, and I have defended your stances on many things to the public and the board. What I cannot defend is the obvious desire of your organization to pit one group against another with an unwarranted enmity. When the millage was defeated last fall the board did the responsible thing and listened to our fellow citizens and made the cuts that were expressed as offensible to our citizens, we did not take it personally or write letters of discord, we simply went back to work. This board is as dedicated a volunteer group as I have ever seen and that is because the beneficiary is the weakest among us, the children. The children should bind us together as a culture, a nation and a community not divide us. What strikes me as ironic is as you were writing this letter, Dr Scriber and I were talking about appointing to the committee people who would work to bring the project in under budget and spend the money wisely. Mr. Pendergrass at the board meeting spoke of the close election and the need for open communication, the board lives in the community and are fully aware of all diverse economic positions, a fund for future projects and/or debt reduction was instituted 3 years ago. I have said repeatedly before this process ever took place that the board should take steps to stop the debt cycle and save for the future, so please do not take credit for ideas in which you are dilatory. Frank, I just do not get the level of mistrust that you have of very trustworthy people who are sincere about the job of educating students. Moreover, I fear that the way you have presented yourself at times has hurt your credibility and is disappointing when a taxpayer advocate group is sorely needed in this day and age of government overspending and irresponsible behavior. We invite you to the table, we have invited you to the table from the beginning, I just ask that you come with the same spirit of cooperation and servitude representative of a school board who is diligent to civic responsibility. Sincerely Dr. Scott Smith |
BCFT's Reply April 22, 2008 (copied to all School Board members & Mike Stockton) Dear Dr. Smith: Thank you for your response to our letter. However, we're sorry that you interpreted it the way you did, by reading a lot more into it than was there. We try very hard to be as specific with words as possible, to avoid misunderstandings or incorrect interpretations. We assure you, there was no animosity intended in this letter; it was just a statement of our position, that BCFT accepts the outcome of the election, but will continue to monitor the process as the school bond issue moves forward. As elected officials, school board members -- and, by extension, district administrators -- are inherently subject to scrutiny from their patrons. The research we do and the questions we ask are not accusations of wrongdoing, but are requests from concerned citizens for sufficient information so that we can fully understand what you do, and why it is being done. With economic times being what they are, people aren't as likely as they once were to casually turn over their tax money and forget about it. The folks who come to us for information and answers to their questions want assurance that their tax dollars will be spent wisely. Quite frankly, in years past the school administration hasn't done a great job of convincing people that this will happen, which is why these folks have asked us to be their eyes and ears. Dr. Smith, based on your comments, you seem to understand and appreciate that BCFT's mission is to promote conservative taxation through representation and accountability. To do this we must continually question the choices made by local governmental bodies, including school district administration. BCFT's bylaws specifically state that, among other things, our purpose is to (a) advocate for the application of principals of good government administration; (b) focus public attention on public expenditures; and (c) monitor public expenditures to eliminate waste, inefficiency, and duplication. That's what BCFT is doing -- advocating, focusing and monitoring. We don't see anything evil or even objectionable in any of those things. In fact, we are exercising our rights and responsibilities as good citizens, participating in and influencing local government by voicing our opinions to the appropriate officials. This new bond issue will bring a whopping $41.1 million into play (not counting interest and overages), and we believe it is of the utmost importance that every dollar gets spent with the taxpayers' best interests at heart. We hope you agree that this should be the goal -- and that we can work together to see that it turns out that way. Sincerely, Frank & Suzan
Kaye |
From Mr. Mike Stockton
Dear Councilman Kaye; When I first read your email, I was very disappointed. I thought how can a City Councilman show such distain for other elected officials? Surely, he understands that, like him, people elected them to represent their views, hopes and desires. That a majority of people felt they would work in the community’s best interest and make Mountain Home a better place to live. I was shocked by your inference the civic leadership of Mountain Home would not do the “right thing” without the ever watchful eye of the BCFT. You seem to say the only elected official who can be trusted is you. You seem to infer, we cannot trust election officials without watching the votes being tallied, and we certainly can’t trust the school board to follow through on their commitments without the threat of the BCFT. How outrageous! Then things got worse. I noticed it was not just a letter to the Board, but to all the citizens who voted in favor of the issue. Let me point out a few things you seem to have missed in your review of the election results. Ward 1 voted 55% to 45% in favor of the millage increase. Ward 2 voted 58% to 42% in favor of the millage increase. Ward 3 voted 57% to 43% in favor of the millage increase. Finally, Ward 4, the people you were elected to represent, voted 59% to 41% in favor of the millage increase. In fact, the four Wards of Mountain Home voted 57% to 43% in favor of the millage increase. Clearly, this is a mandate you, as a city councilman, cannot ignore. While Mountain Home was firmly behind the millage increase, it is obvious the CARE group did a poor job of finding a message that resonated with the voters who live in the outlying areas. We did not answer the “What’s in it for me” question for the people in Clarkridge, Gamaliel, Henderson, Lakeview, Midway, and Three Bothers. As citizens of Mountain Home, it is our duty and responsibility to hold all of our elected officials to a high standard. We should go to meetings, listen and educate ourselves on the issues our community faces. Then we hold our leadership accountable for their actions with free, fair and frequent elections. Our community leaders should create a compelling vision of what Mountain Home could be, not simply be obstructionists who noisily rant and preach at the rest of us about how things “ought to be.” Sadly, you, as a Mountain Home City Councilman, did not represent the city, or, most notably, Ward 4 on this most critical of issues, but instead chose to stand for the views of the BCFT. The School Board has the difficult task of reaching the folks in the outlying communities, you do not. You simply have to listen to the people you were elected to represent, and serve them to the best of your ability. I, for one, will watch how you do that with a much greater interest from now on. Mike Stockton |
BCFT's Reply April 22, 2008 (copied to all School Board members) Dear Mr. Stockton: This is Suzan. I'm writing to thank you for responding to our letter, dated April 18. However, I must point out that your first paragraph is full of inferences, assumptions and (incorrect) interpretations of what the letter actually said, which was, in plain terms, "You won. We accept that. We're not going away." Whether it's a popular position or not, BCFT will continue to monitor the construction bond process and encourage the school board and administrators to complete this project as economically as possible. Your letter also indicates that you have some trouble separating city business from other issues. The school district is a separate legislative/administrative entity from either the city or the county. This millage increase election was not a city council matter, so the fact that Frank is a sitting council member has nothing to do with it. The vote breakdown by ward has no bearing on the argument, since it was a district-wide election. (And as long as we're on the subject -- not a single constituent from Ward 4 contacted him and asked him to support the millage increase.) As I mentioned in an earlier message, BCFT's stated purpose is to encourage good government practices, make people aware of how their tax money is spent, and monitor those expenditures to eliminate waste, inefficiency and duplication. In our view, these things should not be looked upon as insults to school administration -- as you and some others apparently have decided they are -- but appreciated as an example of civics in action: interested citizens playing an active part in the everyday business of their community. Mr. Stockton, you do not have to agree with our position, but as an American citizen you should at least respect our right to express opinions that differ from yours, without resorting to personal attacks and slanderous/libelous commentary. We stood up for what we believe in, as you did, and the outcome was decided at the ballot box. That should be the end of the discussion. Suzan Kaye |