VoteNoBonds.com

I want more facts about school bonds

In response to “Beware of baloney” (Sept. 18 editorial):

Taxpayers are entitled to detailed information about the school bonds on the Nov. 8 ballot.

The $427 million price tag should be broken down. For instance, where will the 10 new schools be built? What will they cost? How many students will they accommodate?

The need for new schools is great, but without better information to justify this expenditure, I will vote no.

Mary E. Squires

Matthews

Letters to the Observer

In July, five Republican officials urged the Board of Education to propose an affordable school bond referendum focused on the most critical construction need—new schools and new seat additions. In our recommendation, we mentioned that, because of poor prioritization in the recent past, suburban overcrowding has been insufficiently addressed while “serviceable schools [in the urban core] were razed and replaced only to be half-filled.” We cited eight examples and observed that reconstructed First Ward Elementary “has 49 classrooms for 639 students—13 students per room.”

The School Board ignored our recommendation and sent a whopping $510 million request to the Board of County Commissioners. There, the Democrat majority whittled it—by cutting funds for new school sites! We have urged voters to defeat this still-bloated, misprioritized school bond and then ride herd on the Commissioners to accelerate construction of new seats with COP’s, STARTING THIS FALL.

Two weeks ago, on behalf of a well-financed pro-bond campaign, school board member and Chamber of Commerce official Kit Cramer labeled a “myth” our report of half-full, newly rebuilt schools. She claimed utilization rates of 89% or more for the eight schools we cited, except for two in the mid-60s and one that is a foreign language immersion program in transition. A number of recently replaced schools, Ms. Cramer claimed, are at more than 100% capacity

Well, Ms. Cramer, you didn’t say where you got your numbers, but we’ll tell you where we get ours. From CMS and your bond campaign web site.

The table below sets forth 2004-05 utilization rates of every one of the replaced schools cited in your memo. (The schools in bold are the ones we mentioned in our paper.) The figures are calculated from the CMS 2004-05 20th-day enrollment list and school capacities of reconstructed schools published by the bond campaign: See “ Bond Projects 1996-2005,” www.voteyesforbonds.com/SummaryBondFundYears.pdf .

Now, compare these new elementary schools, eight of which are approximately half-full, with 29 others, mostly suburban, where permanent space per student is as little as one-fourth that in schools CMS has replaced. For example, Steele Creek has 60 square feet of permanent space per student, compared with 270 square feet per student at Ashley Park—almost five time less:

So, as we stated, eight elementary schools replaced at a cost of over $90 million are approximately half-full, not one replaced school is full, and 29 schools that have not been augmented are from one-and-a-half to four-and-a-half times as crowded as those schools CMS decided to replace.

As for Ms. Cramer’s myth-busting, we hope she will explain how Lincoln Heights Elementary, for example, is at 100% of capacity with 471 students in a spanking new building built for 800. We suspect that she would have to reveal that her utilization statistics for replaced urban core schools are built on changed “capacity.” Not that any of the school buildings constructed in the urban core are any smaller or different than set forth in the “Project Scope” column of that table on voteyesforbonds.com. Rather, CMS and the Chamber simply told us one thing when they asked approval to spend the money; they now tell us another to hide that the money was spent foolishly.

Is it any wonder that there is a crisis of confidence in the stewardship of our tax dollars and public schools? It’s time for a new direction. No more poorly prioritized, wasteful spending. Vote NO on the school bond issue, and the County Commission can begin focused funding of the real school construction priorities THIS FALL.

Dan Bishop, BOCC District 5

Larry Gauvreau, BOE District 1

Bill James, BOCC District 6

Kaye McGarry, BOE At-Large

Jim Puckett, BOCC District 1

Ellen Loflin, BOE Candidate District 5

Bond Brouhaha Begins

By BRIAN GOTT - STAFF WRITER

With strong opposition from some leaders of the black community, voter approval of the $427 million schools bonds appears to face an uphill battle.
….

By far, though, the schools bonds issue has proved the most controversial, even for politicians and community activists that typically have never met a schools bond they didn’t like.

Some black candidates for district school board seats – races that will be decided the same day as the bonds – aren’t voicing a tremendous amount of support for the bonds this time around.

“It’s evident we need new schools, but I’m also aware that we need to maintain some of the older schools,” said Donna Jenkins-Dawson, a black Democrat who is running against District 2 board member Vilma Leake.

“That bond is faulty,” Jenkins-Dawson said. “We go from one extreme to the other. We need some balance.”

Dwayne Collins, who is seeking the seat District 3 school board member George Dunlap currently holds, said he’s not sure yet if he’ll vote for the bonds.

“At this point, I’m kind of in between,” said Collins, who is black. “The question in my mind is how is this money going to affect the high poverty, low performing schools.”
….
James said those sentiments are indicative of a rift growing in the black community when it comes to getting behind the schools bonds.

“There’s a big family feud,” James said. “The only thing missing is (former Family Feud game show host) Richard Dawson.”

“The NAACP and the Black Political Caucus are opposed to the bonds because they don’t want to build schools in the suburbs and they don’t like the student assignment plan,” James said.

But that might just be James’ own interpretation from what he says he has been hearing at the grassroots level. Neither group is officially opposed to the bonds at this point. The Black Political Caucus held a community forum to discuss the matter Sunday night.

Rembert said she’s heard from some in the black community who are opposed to the bonds and she’s heard complaints that too much of the bond money is scheduled to be spent in the suburbs. However, she thinks when all communities are educated about the bonds and how past bonds have been spent, people will realize these bonds are necessary.

“I recognize that there is extraordinary growth in the suburbs and the schools are overcrowded,” Rembert said. “But we also need to renovate schools in the middle ring.”
….
Proponents of COPs, though, point out that they demand more accountability than wide-sweeping bonds. Board of Education member Kaye McGarry, a white Republican, said bond money could be shifted and changed for different projects than those for which voters approved the bonds, which has happened in the past, while COPs fund specific projects.

However, Democrats who control the board of county commissioners all said they would oppose using COPs to fund school construction if the bonds are defeated.

Puckett called that “blackmail.”

School Board member Larry Gauvreau, a white Republican, said some leaders in the black community are feigning opposition to the bonds in the hopes that more bond money would be spent on inner city schools, instead of suburban schools, to gain the black community’s support.

“I think it’s an act that certain politicians put people through every year,” Gauvreau said.

“It’s a negotiating tactic to scare people into building more schools in the inner city,” he said. “But how can anyone disagree with the fact that over a billion dollars has been put into the center city and middle ring schools since 1998? They are over-built.”

Bond supporters are turning to technology in their effort to get the bonds passed come November. Board of Education Vice Chairwoman Kit Cramer, who is white and registered as Unaffiliated, announced recently the voteyesforbonds.com website promoting the bonds will have a “myth-busters” section to counter what she claims are misconceptions some people have about the bonds.

Some of those myths are that schools in the inner city are at half of capacity, Cramer said.

James contested that notion and said one thing is not a myth: The public is not satisfied with CMS and the way it is spending the taxpayers’ money.

“If you really want to send a message to CMS that they are incompetent boobs, vote ‘no’ on the bonds,” James said.

Rhino Times Article

Hi, this is George Young from Matthews. I had applied for the interim school board position. I didn’t expect they would take me because I pushed the idea of deconsolidating CMS. But, I was surprised to hear Joe White say that they weren’t going to choose someone that was going to be running in the District 6 race, and then see them turn around and choose the deputy of Kindberg. And for Ms. Downing to get that, prior to the election and after Joe White’s remarks, I think once again it drops the trust level of what a member of the school board, particularly the chair, says compared to what he does. So, I doubt the bonds are going to be approved. I know I won’t be voting for them, because I can’t trust these people with money. Regardless of what they say, that’s not what they do. Once again, George Young, Matthews, North Carolina. Thank you very much.

Sound of the Beep - Rhino TimesSeptember 15, 2005

Archive - News | Citizen Servatius 05.05.04
BY TARA SERVATIUS

If you brought in a cartographer from Alaska who knew nothing about local politics and showed him last year’s maps of where Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools planned to build and renovate schools in the next decade, he’d be baffled.

The colorful dots representing the new schools CMS has now built, or planned to build or renovate at the time, are mostly in the center, where the bulk of the county’s population doesn’t live. A few stray dots are scattered in the suburbs, where most people in this county do.

The date of these maps, which were part of the Long-Range School Facilities Master Plan, is September 2003, just before a suburban majority took over the school board. This was far more than a building plan; it was a desperate blueprint for one last stab at integration by the same school board that fought in court to keep the system integrated. It was a plan not just to renovate schools, but to cluster the bulk of the newest seats in and around its center, which over time would force white kids to be bused in, reintegrating the system. That’s why many schools already built and renovated under this plan now sit half empty. They were overbuilt, and that was no accident.

To understand how we got here, you’ve got to understand the thinking of the last school board. They knew that without busing, suburban schools would get even whiter, the best teachers would follow, and the disparities would snowball in an endless Catch-22. So the way they saw it, they had three choices: Shut down dilapidated schools in the county’s center, forcing minority kids into suburban schools; build new seats in the center of the county, which would eventually force suburban kids into those schools; or dictate to teachers where they would teach and let the kids follow them, a game teachers wouldn’t be eager to play and that low-income children would never win.

The last school board was midway through option number two when the unforeseen disaster occurred. They lost control of the school board after suburbanites finally noticed that all the school construction they kept voting for didn’t include much for them. The new board has, of course, no intention of filling the extra seats planned and built in the center of the county with suburban kids. Instead, it has completely reversed direction, leaving some of the center county schools that still need work in limbo. Before they’re done, the new board will likely blow hundreds of millions more on suburban schools we should have built five years ago.

Read more…
Creative Loafing Article

In my heart I want to vote money for the school facilities. My No Vote will be a Vote of NO Confidence in the current regime.

In the previous post Ms. Kramer details the previous votes for bonds. I voted Yes. I trusted the system. No schools were built or planned in a rational manner when I voted to spend that money. That money is still unspent.

I have no confidence that there is any effective management in CMS to spend those hundreds of millions appropriately. I will vote No on those bonds.

Board of Advisor members, last week you received an email regarding the
2005 Mecklenburg County school bond campaign. Through a technical
error we regret that Board of Advisor email addresses were disclosed. We
apologize for that mistake and have taken steps to correct the issue.

As a result of the error, opponents of the bonds were able to reply to
everyone on the list with their arguments for voting against the bonds.
This presented us with an opportunity to learn more about the
objections to this important community issue. We have been researching the discussed issues and wanted to provide you with further information. Attached to this email you’ll find a detailed response from Kit Cramer who serves as the Chamber’s group vice president for education and also as vice chair of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.

In summary, those who oppose the bonds have clearly stated their intention: to defeat the school bonds and then attempt to fund the construction of only new classroom seats with Certificates of Participation. Their statement does not fully reflect all the facts that support the need for this school bond referendum. Renovations and life cycle replacements are high priorities in addition to new schools and are more efficiently and appropriately funded through bonds approved by the voters.

The strength of our community is that we all share in the costs; we
all share in the benefits. The future of our community depends on a strong
school system; our children depend on us to provide it. Your vote on
November 8 endorsing the 2005 bonds will get us there. For further
details on how past bond dollars have been spent, as well as the
details surrounding this campaign, go to www.voteyesforbonds.com.

Thank you,

Chairs of the Vote Yes for 2005 Bonds
Anthony Fox Jim Babb Amy Aussieker
Joe Polite

Parker Poe Bahakel Broadcasting Centex
Construction First Colony

______________________________________________________________
Integraphx proactively scans all email for virus content

Response to Dissenters on Bonds

A Return on Investment

Charlotte-Mecklenburg has a tradition of supporting our public schools.
Past school facilities bonds on the ballot include: 1995 ($217 million,
72% voting yes), 1997 ($415 million, 73% voting yes), 2000 ($275
million, 71% voting yes) and 2002 ($224 million, 63% voting yes). That’s a lot of money, but a lot has been done with it. Since 1996, bonds and certificates of participation (COPs) have been used to build 37 new school
buildings, to accomplish renovations and additions at 66 existing schools,
and to replace worn-out building systems like heating, air conditioning,
plumbing and roofing at many more.

While a lot of money has been spent, what dissenters don’t say is that
the school system consistently asked for higher numbers that were cut back
…numbers that were based upon student projections that ended up being
largely accurate.

At one time, school bonds were running on an every-other-year cycle.
Bonds that Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) requested be voted upon
in 1999 were delayed to 2000, and a 2004 question was delayed until 2005,
resulting in our being off by two bond cycles, requiring larger amounts
in subsequent requests that were still trimmed. That means that although
our community has generously supported bonds in the past, the size of the
referenda haven’t been adequate to deal with capital needs, nor have we
addressed them as often as we should.

The investment in school facilities should come as no surprise. Since
1994, Mecklenburg County has grown in population from 585,041 to
829,978—41.9%. That kind of growth impacts everything, including
schools.

Adequate Seats for All Students

The response from the County Commissioners and School Board members who are against the bonds — 5 of a total of 18 public officials–states
that the bond package is unfocused on the priority of providing every
student a permanent seat in a school near home. There’s a fault in that logic.
Although providing a seat for students is certainly a priority, it is
not the only one. Nearly half of our schools do not meet the current space
standards, and many were built in the decades of the 50s and 60s. Not
only are many of these schools in poor condition, but they are inadequate
to reasonably deliver today’s curriculum. Our objective must be to provide adequate seats for all of our students. A “growth only� capital plan is one sided and will never allow us to meet that objective.

Bonds are also needed to meet state and federal mandates intended to keep
students safe and in a healthy environment, for example, projects like
asbestos removal or fire alarm upgrades.

Myth Busting

The dissenters’ statement encourages citizen discontent through the
promulgation of a myth: that “serviceable schools were razed and
replaced only to be half filled.� The fact of the matter is that nearly
three-quarters (73%) of CMS’s schools are either completely full or are
already over capacity. When you add in schools that are close to being
completely full (greater than 90% of capacity), the total of full or
overcrowded schools is 87%. Of that number, 22% are projected to have
over one-and-a-half times as many students as they can hold (over 150%
capacity).

Schools that have been replaced were done so because they were not
serviceable, had become too costly to maintain, and did not have the
spaces necessary to allow delivery of the curriculum. The original
statement highlighted a few non-suburban schools but left others out.
To be complete, I’ve included all of them regardless of their location :

· Barringer ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1951. As
a “Florida Plan� school it became a major impediment to the delivery of a
modern educational program. Florida Plan schools were generally a
cluster of buildings with six to eight classrooms. Each classroom had an
exterior entry door and was “air conditioned� by cross ventilation. The
physical condition of the buildings and the security challenges that they
present today necessitated replace of the school. This school is currently at
92% capacity.
· Druid Hills ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1960.
As a “Florida Plan� school it became a major impediment to the delivery
of a modern educational program. This school is currently at 89%
capacity.
· First Ward ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1961.
Although renovated and added onto, the building no longer supported the
delivery of a good educational program. This school is currently at
119% capacity.
· Highland Mill Montessori ES - The main portion of this school was
built in 1954. As a “Florida Plan� school it became a major impediment to
the delivery of a modern educational program. This school is currently at
88% capacity.
· Lincoln Heights ES - The main portion of this school was built in
1956. As a “Florida Plan� school it became a major impediment to the delivery of a modern educational program. Today this school is at 100% capacity.
· J.H. Gunn ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1952.
Although renovated and added onto, the building no longer supported the
delivery of a good educational program. This school is currently at
112% of capacity.
· Merry Oaks ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1952.
As a “Florida Plan� school it became a major impediment to the delivery of a modern educational program. This school is currently at 129% capacity.
· Pinewood ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1953. The
building no longer supported the delivery of a good educational
program.
This school is currently at 115% capacity.
· Selwyn ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1958. As a
“Florida Plan� school it became a major impediment to the delivery of a
modern educational program. This school is currently at 124% capacity.
· Sterling ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1937.
Although renovated and added onto, the building no longer supported the
delivery of a good educational program. This school is at 89% capacity.
· Windsor Park ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1960.
As
a “Florida Plan� school it became a major impediment to the delivery of
a modern educational program. This school is at 121% capacity.

In addition, numerous schools have been renovated, and expanded to
provide adequate classrooms and core facilities. Although significant
portions of these schools were demolished, the parts of these schools that were worth saving were saved. These schools include:

· Ashley Park ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1956.
As a “Florida Plan� school it became a major impediment to the delivery of
a modern educational program. Major portions of the existing building
remain today as part of the new school. Today this school is at 64% capacity.
· Billingsville ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1927
and the mid ‘50’s. As a “Florida Plan� school it became a major impediment
to the delivery of a modern educational program. The newer, 1991 portions
of the school remain as part of the new school. The school has reopened
for the ’05-06 school year. It is at 81% capacity.
· Eastover ES - The main portion of this school was built in the 1935.
This portion was saved while the 1952 portion of the school was
demolished to make room for the new classrooms. Today this school is at 114% capacity.
· Elizabeth Traditional ES - The main portion of this school was built
in 1935. This portion was saved while a later portion of the school was
demolished to make room for the new classrooms. Today this school is
at 103% capacity.
· Myers Park Traditional ES - The main portion of this school was
built in 1928. This portion was saved and new classrooms added. Today this school is at 102% capacity.
· Oakhurst ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1959.
Portions were demolished while other portions were renovated. Today
this school is at 83% capacity.
· Oaklawn ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1964.
Portions were saved. The renovated school opened in 2004 as a language
immersion magnet. The nature of this program allowed filling only K-1
grades initially because students are taught entirely in the foreign
language. Today this school is at 58% capacity and is expected to grow
as a grade level is added each successive year.
· Thomasboro ES - The main portion of this school was built in 1962.
This portion was saved while the 1952 portion of the school was demolished
to make room for new classrooms. Today this school is at 92% capacity.
· Westerly Hills ES - The main portion of this school was built in
1968.
Only a minor portion was demolished. There were major additions. Today
this school is at 66% capacity.

With reference to Marie G. Davis, the School Board initially made the
decision to scale back the size of the renovation. Since that time, a
decision has been made to re-task the school, turning it into a magnet
school for grades 6 – 12. There has been some thought that this would
be the site for a Junior ROTC magnet school. This has been under
discussion for a while. The bottom line is that the school will not be built
larger than it needs to be, yet it will fulfill the commitment made to keep a
school in that community.

Walter G. Byers in a new elementary school that was mentioned as being
half-filled. It is at 91% capacity.

The Need

The dissenters further state that the bond package is unaffordable.
Our citizens have been complaining more and more about crowded schools.
The School Board has no taxing authority and is entirely dependent upon the County Commission for capital funding. So what is the alternative?
The need is with us today! This community cannot afford to ignore any of
our school facility needs.

CMS has projected 53,000 additional students will enter school in the
next 10 years. Fifty-one new schools plus many renovations will be needed
to keep up with the demand. The Long Range Facilities Master Plan calls
for a total of $1.97 billion dollars in capital needs over the next decade.
Because of an effort to focus tight capital dollars on classroom seats,
school district support facilities—the same facilities that the dissenters
would have you defer– have not been addressed since 1987. In that
time the square footage of facilities has doubled and the school bus fleet
has increased by 60% to keep up with the number of students. Seventy
existing schools don’t meet educational standards. Many were built before there were such things as special education, computers or kindergarten. At
some point the community must address these issues. To not do so is not
only damaging to children, it could potentially be damaging to our bond
rating and our economy. Communities that don’t invest in critical
infrastructure don’t retain AAA bond ratings or attract new jobs.

The dissenters have said that “unaddressed suburban growth has produced
huge trailer farms and students lunching outdoors on winter days.�
Yet, the history of the support of bonds by these same people is weak.

The School Bond Particulars

The referendum’s $427 million in school construction projects would
include 10 new schools in high-growth areas of the county, renovations
and additions to 14 schools, and numerous lifecycle replacements and
structural improvements throughout the system. Of the $66 million
question for land purchases, $46 million would be used to buy land for
future parks, libraries and schools and $20 million would be used to
protect the Mountain Island Lake watershed, which supplies much of our
drinking water. There will also be a $46.5 million question for
Central Piedmont Community College and a $14.5 million item on law enforcement facilities.

The Suburbs vs. Inner City?

Among the projects the dissenters are suggesting be deferred are
renovations and additions at North Mecklenburg, South Mecklenburg,
Alexander, Alexander Graham, Cochrane, Davidson, McClintock,
Sedgefield, Idlewild, Long Creek and Amy James. The average age of these schools is 45 years. The dissenters suggest that the focus of capital expenditures should be suburban needs. Yet seven of these projects are in the suburbs.
Upon completion these projects will provide the system with over 6,700
seats that are adequate and supported by the requisite core facilities
that they do not have today. If adequate seats with appropriate core
facilities at our new schools are important, why shouldn’t it be
equally as important at our older facilities, particularly when some of these
older schools are considered “low performing�?

Increased Costs

The dissenters have also questioned the increase in costs for
elementary schools, which were previously completed at $11 million with new ones budgeted for $16 million. In the last 22 months the average cost per square foot has increased from $93 to $130 – an increase of 39%! To use budget numbers that were the basis of the costs in the 2002 Bond
Referendum would ensure that funds would be exhausted before all
projects were completed.

Also, according to the chief of school planning for the NC Department
of Public Instruction, dramatic increases in costs were seen in early 2004
and have continued. Steel and concrete have been in increasingly short
supply. The cost of fuel has compounded the situation.

Intentions and Fairness

Those who are opposed to the bonds have clearly stated their intention:
to defeat the bonds and then attempt to fund only new construction in
suburban areas with Certificates of Participation, which are not voted
upon by the public and are more expensive. They have ignored the fact
that the percentage of proposed bond projects devoted to growth at 61%
vs. renovations at 28% is reflective of the percentage in the Long Range
Facilities Master Plan. This is a plan that was vetted and signed off
by city and town planners throughout Mecklenburg County…a plan that
combined and prioritized both growth and renovation needs. Another consideration is that using COPs to fund $253.8 million in construction would have an estimated additional cost over 20 years of $2.5 to $6.3 million over traditional General Obligation bonds.

The dissenters are suggesting that suburban students deserve more of
their fair share of the dollars available for school construction, yet over
$843 million of the $1.8 billion dollars spent since 1985 have been in
districts 1 and 6 alone, all that despite that fact that some representatives from these districts on both the school board and county
commission have consistently voted against placing referenda on the
ballot.

The strength of our community is that we all share in the costs and we
all share in the benefits. The entire community needs strong schools. We
need to vote yes for the bonds. You can see further details on how past
bond monies have been spent, as well as future plans, at
www.voteyesforbonds.com.

Kit Cramer
Group Vice President-Education, Charlotte Chamber
Vice Chair, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

$554 million would include money for school construction

CARRIE LEVINE
Staff Writer

Mecklenburg County commissioners on Wednesday approved asking voters to borrow $554 million for county projects by putting it on the November ballot.

Five Democrats voted in favor of the bond issue. Republicans Bill James and Jim Puckett voted against $427 million for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools construction projects. Democrat Valerie Woodard voted against all the bonds. Commissioner Dan Bishop, a Republican, was absent.

Puckett and James said the schools need far less money to keep up with growth, and should cut back on renovating older schools because county residents can’t afford to spend that much.

But the five Democrats — along with several speakers at a public hearing on the bonds — said the schools need the money, and the older schools need the work.

Woodard said she voted against putting the bonds on the ballot because she did not believe the bonds could win widespread support among voters who are reeling from a 10.6 percent tax hike the board passed in June.

Charlotte Observer Article

Richard McElrath announced that the Black Political Caucus would hold a
discussion of bonds on the November ballot on Sept. 11 at 6 p.m. at
Little Rock AME Zion Church, 401 McDowell St. Assistant Supt. Susan Agruso
will attend.

bpccharlotte.com

CMS review panel lacks real diversity

By Jeff A. Taylor

March 24, 2005

Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools finally has its review panel of private citizens led by former mayor Harvey Gantt. From the looks of it, none of the group’s $500,000 budget was spent looking beyond the Chamber of Commerce’s speed dial for members.
…
Insular is not too strong a word for a group that if you threw a rope around the Center City Partners and the Foundation for the Carolinas you’d corral many of our CMS reviewers. More interesting still is the fact that five of the 16 members — Krista Tillman, Mac Everett, Frank Emory, Astrid Chirinos, and Catherine Bessant — number among CMS at-large school board member and Chamber exec Kit Cramer’s featured supporters. The possible implications of that overlap will soon become clear.

But as for the basic make-up of the panel, the most glaring omission seems to be any input from the school system’s teachers. No active duty CMS teachers, not even retired ones. Why? It could not be that Gantt and co-chair Bessant wanted to avoid members with connections to the school system they will evaluate or to local government, which the panel will implicitly review.

After all, the panel includes Bernard Johnson, two-time Char-Meck school board selection to serve on the county planning commission. Johnson’s SB&J Enterprises is also listed as an official disadvantaged business enterprise at the city-owned Charlotte Douglas airport, where it operates food services including World Travelers Marketplace and KFC Express.

Nor is Johnson alone among panel members with close professional ties to local government. Take Patricia Rodgers, CEO of Rodgers Builders. Her firm is a principal in the $41 million ImaginOn uptown children’s center. In 2003, a Rodgers joint venture received what was then a $25 million contract from the county to build the combo library and theater with the grand opening slated for spring 2005. Since then $10 million in cost overruns has helped to delay ImaginOn’s opening until this fall amid questions about how the project went off-budget. Gantt’s own firm, Gantt Huberman Architects, also worked on ImaginOn.

In 2001, Rodgers Builders renovated the offices of the Foundation for the Carolinas on South Tryon. Rodgers is also part of the $25 million whitewater park planned for the Catawba River. The city of Charlotte has already slated $2 million in loans for the project and Mecklenburg County is guaranteeing up to $7 million in loans from Wachovia and Bessant’s Bank of America.
…
And panel member Frank Emory, a Charlotte attorney and former member of the state’s transportation board, led the Chamber’s light rail pep rally, the Second Annual Transit Summit in November. Emory helped steer Mecklenburg toward light rail and away from roads during his tenure on the Trans board in the late 90s.

Emory also served on Gov. Mike Easley’s tax loophole closing commission. Its April 2001 report recommended the state consider scavenging for more revenue by hitting DirecTV, fertilizer and seeds, and Social Security benefits. No, really.

Emory’s views on taxes get us back to the Kit Cramer bloc on the panel. Last year in her capacity as vice president of the Chamber’s education group, Cramer held a series of closed-door meetings featuring presentations from Bank of America experts on debt capacity and financing options. This led to speculation that revenue from a real estate transfer tax, raising perhaps as much as $70 million a year, could be used to secure school-construction bonds worth hundreds of millions. In other words, the banker solution for everything: You take out a loan; we’ll take a transaction fee.

So there you have it, your grand outsider look at CMS. Just a repeat of what the Chamber did last year, along with a dollop of Foundation for the Carolinas facilitation to paper-over any dissent?

I’m more than willing to be proven wrong, but it certainly appears this group is poised to recommend additional taxes — either in the form of real estate transfer taxes or impact fees — as the only “reasonable” solution to CMS’ needs. This could be presented to the public as the implicit “price” of continuing the current assignment plan, one that guarantees students a seat at a neighborhood school.

Perhaps a strong voice will emerge on the panel for truly innovative solutions to chronic CMS management problems, solutions like locally-run charter schools or chopping CMS into multiple, digestible “pie slice” districts, or actually empowering school principals. It should be clear, however, that championing new ideas could be a lonely fight on this clubby panel.

No, the specifics are still to come, but the general outline seems set in stone. Tax. Spend. Excuse.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/opinions/display_story.html?id=2316