That’s the question surfacing in the past week or so around the district. A mill levy override (or MLO) is being considered and would likely be on the 2012 ballot if the current board is re-elected.
The subject was first brought up at the May 19th school board meeting by John Mann. More recently, Ted Baumann–who is supporting the current board–brought it up at the October 11 Kiwanis Club meeting. It is now on the January agenda of the District Advisory Accountability Committee (DAAC).
See the pattern?
Had a majority of the board not been up for re-election, this ballot would likely have included an MLO question. This is preferable to those advocating for tax increases because voter turnout is small in odd-year elections. If this board is re-elected, you will see it placed on the next ballot.
But, as I’ve argued in previous posts and in candidate forums, we have not yet seriously looked at cutting expenses and generating new revenues. Using a comprehensive vision for D-38 moving forward, we can align spending with our educational objectives. I believe we will have enough if we use what we have wisely.
So the choice this October is simple: do you want the tax-and-spend policies of the past or do you want a fresh set of eyes and a willingness to ask questions and make improvements?
I ask for your vote to give Ken, Gordon and I the chance to get Lewis-Palmer off the taxing train and back on the road to educational excellence.
I sent this to the other candidates via email–couldn’t find your address.
To: Mark Pfoff, Al Maurer, Gordon Reichal, Ken Valdez
From: Anne Trytten, district parent/engineer in industry for 22 years
Thank you each for your precious time, funds, passion and dedication! I’m sure you are swamped, so please feel free to answer the questions below in the most efficient way for you. If you’ve addressed similar questions, just send those answers.
My questions are the elephant in the room. But I hope you know that most parents and community voters that I know– conservatives and liberals too– believe these are key issues to improving our district and education in general.
Thank you very much,
Anne Trytten
481-9436
anne.trytten@att.net
Questions:
1) What is your opinion on tenure? (Bill 10-191 sounded great but implementation looks weak.)
2) What is your opinion on gradually implementing merit pay within our current budget?
3) What is your opinion on a voucher program, similar (or not) to Douglas County’s?
4) What is your opinion on the unsustainability of Colorado’s PERA? Can all the school boards in Colorado put pressure on the PERA board to start changes similar to Social Security reform immediately?
5) How would you make progress on these politically incorrect issues on a board made up largely of life-long educators who have limited exposure to competitive industry?
Anne,
These are great questions and are indeed the great unasked questions of the season. Unfortunately, the two public meet-the-candidate sessions were so tightly scripted that only a few audience questions were asked at the monument Academy debate and even those were not broadcast online. I’ve posted to answers to all my questions on this site.
The general answers to your questions is that we need more public debate around those issues. In light of that, I have some ideas and some tendencies in certain directions, but I would want a fuller discussion of the issues before making specific policy proposals. That said, here are some of my initial reactions:
1. As a teacher, I have seen the negative effects of tenure, which are rarely mentioned. Tenure protects teachers to some extent but fear of losing tenure with a specific district also traps teachers. In addition, every new teacher with a district, regardless of her teaching background and experience, starts out at the bottom. These and other issues seem to me ground for re-looking at tenure.
2. I am for merit pay, or pay for performance. It would indeed have to be cost neutral from the district’s standpoint and income-neutral from the teacher’s standpoint. We might even offer some options as to whether to participate for some or all teachers. Again, it is something well worth looking into.
3. I favor vouchers generally but perhaps paradoxically, my preference would be to have a district that so well meets the needs of parents and students that the issue of vouchers would be moot.
4. I participated in PERA in the 1990s and again about ten years later and we shocked at how badly the financial situation have changed in those ten years. Treasury Secretary Stapleton is taking on the issue and I certainly would be willing to support him in any way I could. If PERA fails, not only teachers but police, firefighters and all other state employees suffer.
5. If in this question by “board” you mean the PERA board, I can’t really give you a good answer because, as you point out, the board is heavily weighted in favor of those who would benefit and have little incentive to act, unless they can be convinced that action is necessary to avoid certain failure. Secretary Stapleton has taken the lead here and I think the best posture is to get the data and educate those involved with it.