VoteNoBonds.com

Nine Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools are still waiting for renovations voters approved over the past eight years.

…
This time, 57 percent of voters — and three out of four who voted at Northeast Middle — said no to CMS bonds.

Beverly Cannaday, a Northeast parent, says she wasn’t going to keep voting yes when her school’s renovations haven’t materialized, and when CMS failed to plan for inflation. Rising costs jacked up the price of projects higher on the priority list, so projects waiting in line have smaller budgets.

“If they’re not going to spend it wisely, why keep throwing money at it?” Cannaday said.

But David McAlexander, a parent leader at Long Creek Elementary, voted yes, even though no one can say when his school will get promised improvements. In 2002, voters approved money to design a replacement for the aging, crowded Huntersville school. This month they denied money to build it.

…
As it became clear that federal judges would demand a new assignment plan, the school board voted to spend millions to bring old schools up to modern standards. Some already had minor projects authorized in 1997 bonds. The board decided to fold them into more sweeping and costly renovations.

Norm Gundel, a Cornelius lawyer who chairs the citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee, says that approach made sense.

He and Chamberlain say that if CMS had gone ahead with the smaller projects, CMS would have wasted money if it had done the work, then torn it down a few years later as part of a sweeping rehab.

But the decision, they say, created a problem: People with a stake in those schools complain about waiting eight years for CMS to deliver.

“In hindsight,” says Chamberlain, “we probably should have just gotten on with the (1997) renovations.”

Cannaday, the Northeast parent, says it’s not just the timing that irks her. As construction costs soared, higher-priority projects have eaten into the money left for other schools.
…
School board member Kaye McGarry says the GOP plan to borrow a smaller amount would have brought quicker results.

But for schools waiting to see their blueprints turned into bricks, those results would have been mixed. Wings would have been added, but renovations would have been shelved.

And McGarry says in the long run, she thinks well-planned bond requests every four years — the way Central Piedmont Community College does it — make more sense than frequent votes.

Gundel, whose citizens’ advisory panel unanimously endorsed the 2005 bonds, says CMS has honored its promises. But big projects take time, especially when they involve work on an occupied school.

Helping voters understand that, Gundel says, is one of the many challenges ahead.

Article

Open Letter to the Community:

As you can imagine, I am very disappointed with tonight’s vote on the 2005 Bond Referendum. Everyone loses. But the kids lose most of all.

I’m deeply concerned about the message we are sending our children and our teachers who struggle each day in severely overcrowded schools and aging facilities.

It’s unfortunate that side issues have clouded something that should have been very clear. We have 20,000 children in mobile classrooms today, and that number is only going to increase next year.

We have to come together as a community and start focusing on what unites us, rather than what divides us. Our journey is just beginning. The destination is up to us.

Sincerely,

Dr. Frances Haithcock, Ed.D.
Superintendent, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

The Charlotte Observer
Posted Saturday, November 5

Bonds not best way to build schools

Defeat the bonds to ensure schools are constructed where most needed

At last, the Observer has turned to the issue at the heart of this year’s $427 million school bond vote: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools’ record of misprioritized construction spending.

Despite the bizarre headline (”Bonds aim to put seats where they’d be filled, ” Oct. 9), Ann Doss Helms’ story explains how CMS and some politicians have deliberately built or expanded schools where they would be half-filled, even while others were bursting at the seams. Now that a suburban overcrowding crisis has resulted, CMS proposes still to devote 40 percent of the new money — $173 million — to uses other than new schools and classroom additions where schools are overwhelmed.

Welcome to the truth we have been writing about since June. We are glad you decided to cover it. Still, Ms. Helms’ article and the tandem masthead editorial fail to capture the extent of the wasted spending, the duplicity that has concealed it or the viability of the solution we have proposed.

Useful as the comparison is between two new elementary schools — fully utilized Torrence Creek and half-full Billingsville — the article does not make clear that eight of the most under-filled elementary schools (median utilization 48 percent) were replaced or expanded in the past six years at a cost of over $90 million: Ashley Park, Billingsville, Druid Hills, First Ward, Lincoln Heights, Pinewood, Thomasboro and Westerly Hills. In these brand new facilities, the median amount of permanent space per student (225.83 square feet) is two-and-a-half to four times more than in the 27 most crowded elementaries.

Fiddling with capacities

Middle schools are a similar story. Six recently or to-be expanded, replaced or newly built campuses are among the least utilized (Cochrane, Eastway, Marie G. Davis, Martin Luther King Jr., Sedgefield and Spaugh). Even among high schools, which are almost uniformly over capacity, two of the newest — Waddell and Berry — are less than full, with more than three times as much permanent space per student as North Mecklenburg (built 1950), for example, where there are 59 classroom trailers. By contrast, the other new high school, Hopewell, opened well over capacity.CMS construction overseer Guy Chamberlain and school board member Kit Cramer accused us of perpetuating a “myth” about empty seats and claimed only slight and temporary underutilization of any school. Ms. Helms’ article acknowledges that empty seats are no myth; even after building capacities have been “adjusted” by CMS bureaucrats, rebuilt urban-core schools remain underutilized. Still, the very notion of “adjusting” building capacities received no critical attention in the article or the companion editorial.

Indeed, out of one side of your editorial mouth, you lauded CMS’s stubborn insistence on rebuilding 29 percent-full Marie G. Davis Middle School for $18.5 million as keeping a commitment made in the 2000 bond referendum. You voiced no objection, however, to hundreds of seats promised to voters in multiple bond campaigns being simply wiped out of existence by a bureaucratic “adjustment.”

Lincoln Heights Elementary, for example, was slated in the 2000 bond as having a “capacity of 800 students.” (See “Project Scope,” www.voteyesforbonds.com/SummaryBondFundYears.pdf.) CMS now attributes to it a capacity of 480. Among the schools mentioned in this essay alone, CMS has wiped out 4,082 seats promised in various bond referenda through unvoted capacity adjustments. At the standard seat cost of $22,500 (a benchmark used by the Citizens Capital Budget Advisory Committee), this represents approximately $92 million of taxpayer investment gone poof.

In truth, fiddling with building capacities is simply the latest CMS gambit to avoid accountability for disastrous misspending. It is duplicitous. It is no basis for voters to sign another half-billion dollar check, not until the mystifying approach to priority setting is reformed.

Certificates of participation

We have proposed that voters defeat the school bonds and that county commissioners fund new school construction and seat additions through certificates of participation (COPs). It is a viable approach in terms of mechanics and cost. You report that Commissioners Chairman Parks Helms says we can’t deliver on it and that defeating the bonds will stall construction. We would suggest that Chairman Helms is bluffing.

Republican commissioners certainly would propose COPs-funded new school construction immediately after the school bonds are defeated. We believe the Democrat majority would support it, particularly after having vowed to support new school construction in the last campaign. If Democrats will not vote to build new schools and seats to relieve overcrowding, voters can rectify that problem next November. In either event, no delay in construction would occur. The backlog of previously approved bonds will consume annual county bond sales at least until January 2007. By then, COPs can easily be approved by the present board of commissioners — or the next one.

Ironic as it may be, the way for voters to get schools built where they are most needed is to defeat the November school bonds. We’ll show you a better way.

Kaye McGarry, board of education, at-large Jim Puckett, board of county commissioners, District 1 Larry Gauvreau, board of education, District 1 Jaye Alexander, board of education candidate, District 3 Dan Bishop, board of county commissioners, District 5 Ellen Loflin, board of education candidate, District 5 Bill James, board of county commissioners, District 6

Kaye Bernard McGarry, M.Ed.

Survival in College Seminars

Folks, we have heard it all regarding Bonds over the years. The CMS cheerleaders tell us; “It’s for the children”, “It’s for better schools”, “It’s to remain competitive in education.” The list of reasons they give for bonds today are essentially the same as in years past.

Let’s slow down for one moment and look at this rationally. Are we getting what was promised in the past, promised by the same people who are pushing for more money now? If the answer is “No” then they are in breach of their fiduciary duty to use the public money prudently.

Let me give you some insight~ from 1994 to 1998 I worked for the Scottsdale School District and during that time, they mismanaged money given to them through bonds. It was such a scandal! I would hear things through the grape vine (all districts have one) that things were not “kosher”, but we could not get our hands on the “proof” because the District had a closed door. It took a clamor that finally reached the ears of the Attorney General.

The Office of the Attorney General requested that the Office of the Auditor General investigate certain allegations of financial improprieties on the part of administrators and employees of Scottsdale Unified School District.

The term used was Misfeasance by Officials: the performance of a lawful action in an illegal or improper manner.

“Certain” administrators and school employees personally profited and accepted favors from vendors, which violated Arizona Revised Statutes, school district procurement rules, and district policies. Instead of criminal charges against the people who took these actions, contracts were paid off, and people were allowed to retire with benefits, etc. The District and Tax payers took another hit on top of learning the truth. The District was hit with a lawsuit by the Attorney General’s office.

b Civil penalties of $150,000 for each of the six anti-trust violations were handed down, but that wasn’t all that was charged for these improprieties.

The following penalties cost the taxpayers again, in money that could have gone for the children’s benefit, which is the true crime.

b Penalties in the amount of the entire dollar value of each contract, plus 20%, totaling $ 14,070,510.00.

b Further the Court was requested to issue a ten year injunction restraining the District from the following:

1. Engaging in unlawful procurement conduct and conspiracies in restraint of trade.

2. Failing to maintain, refusing to produce, or tampering with documents. They too, did not have an open door policy, which enabled them to conspire, to tamper and to screw the tax payer.

A huge campaign was drummed up to “clean” up the mess. The beat still went on for more money, (the same tune that we hear today.)

This is the reason we need to stop and say “Where is this money going?” and demand accountability. Money went into affluent schools that did not need more items, while other schools languished in squalor and over crowding.

When people began to inquire where the money was going and began asking for records; (because the School District and Board regularly asked for bonds), the District turned around and stonewalled the public. Sound Familiar? It should, because it is the same type of attitude.

In Scottsdale, District top management established a business climate which encouraged a disregard for responsibilities associated with administering public monies. It is the same climate here; and I pose the question are we heading down the same path?

The Report of Misfeasance:

http://www.auditorgen.state.az.us/Reports/School_Districts/Districts/Scottsdale%20USD/SIU/IR10-98.pdf

Think carefully and vote.

Regards,

Shanna Palmer

If only CMS responded to the current educational crisis like it it responding to the upcoming bond referendum. Like a well-oiled machine, our dollars are being used to try and insure a “YES” vote for school bonds. Radio spots, mailings and other propoganda found in the heart of a marketing machine.

If only…

• Educating our kids was the #1 priority.
• CMS responded to parents and the community at large with as much skill and haste.
• Common sense prevailed on the school board.
• Schools were built where the kids are.
• The bond package wasn’t stuffed with pork.
• The bonds were going to build new suburban schools SOON. 2008 is not soon enough.
• Someone would reprioritize the almost 200 million of approved, yet unissued bonds from previous referendums.

I can only hope, but as long as the CMS marketing machine continues to manufacture F.U.D. (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), there is little chance for all of the above. The facts are out there people, the current administration would prefer to continue putting lipstick on the pig. They are spending our money to do it, and need to be held accountable. Help send a strong message on the 8th by voting NO on the bonds. Essentials can be funded with COP’s and will likely be done sooner than the bonds could provide for. Our children deserve better than this. CMS needs an infusion of business mentality, accountability and above all, common sense.

When you make decisions about your child’s education, do you think about what is best for your child or about what is best for society in general?

I know that Mrs. Capitalist and I think about what is best for our children in the context of what we can afford. That is the responsibility of every parent.
…
The underlying premise is that the focus of public schools should be on the neediest. The purpose of your taxes and bond repayments is to provide for better schooling for needy kids who, in their view, should get the abundance of resources, and to bus needy kids out to the suburbs forcing overcrowding at those schools. The suburban overcrowding now, they say, requires a $500 million bond issue.

It is time for parents to push back and in pure self-interest say, “What about my kid?” and “My kid first!”

A “My kid first!” perspective would of course lead to a totally private school system. That is not going to happen tomorrow. The thing to do today is to vote against the bond offering. Looks like some parents are going that way according to the article.

Charlotte Capitalist Oct. 10, 2005

By BRIAN GOTT - STAFF WRITER

After receiving a backlash of public criticism last week for using taxpayer-funded resources to market an aggressive school bonds promotional campaign, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools officials appear to have taken some preliminary steps to rein in its message.

Those steps, however, might not go far enough to prevent CMS from landing in hot water. A group of concerned citizens, including Mecklenburg Commissioner Dan Bishop, said this week they are considering legal action to prevent CMS from continuing any promotional efforts that would encourage people to vote for the bonds.

In particular, CMS has been using taxpayer-funded resources like the district’s CMS TV cable station, CMS email, signs, flyers, school personnel and staff time to highlight what district officials and bond proponents claim are the benefits the massive $427 million school bonds would provide.
…
Bishop was referring to case law that prohibits governmental entities from taking a position and urging voters to vote one way or another on particular election issues. In a 2002 North Carolina Court of Appeals decision, a judge ruled in favor of a plaintiff who was suing the Town of Cary for conducting a “Growth Management and Education Outreach Campaign.” As a part of the campaign, town leaders conducted direct mail campaigns and media buys to “better inform the citizens about growth and management.”

In that case, the judge ruled that governmental entities were allowed to conduct educational campaigns. However, “Where the advertising is designed to influence an election, it is impermissible,” the judge wrote.

The judge also ruled that some taxpayer-funded communications could cross the line even if they don’t specifically say “vote yes” or “vote no.”

Read more …
RhinoTimes Article

Dear Editor,
If you support a sound basic education for all children, you must vote “no” for the school bonds. N.C. Rep. Beverly Earl and other local and state elected officials based their support for the school bonds on rapid growth in suburban areas and the need for life cycle replacement of things such as roofs, HVAC, etc. I have no doubt that the student population of CMS will increase by 53,000 students in the next 10 years, and that we will have to build schools to accommodate these students. My problem isn’t the need; it is CMS’ response to the need.

At least 45 percent of the 53,000 expected new students will be poor and minority. That translates to 23, 580 new poor and minority students that will be attending schools in CMS over the next 10 years. Most, if not all, of these poor and minority students will be located in Districts 2, 3 and 4. CMS plans to build 10 schools with the bond money. Only one of those 10 schools will be built in District 2; there will be no schools built in Districts 3 or 4. The standard for poverty in CMS is whether a child receives free and reduced lunch (FRL). If a school has high concentrations of FRL students it is labeled a “Focus School” (formerly called Equity Plus schools). There are 53 “Focus Schools” (schools with high concentrations of poverty) in CMS; 48 of them are located in Districts 2, 3 and 4. While approximately 48 percent of the students that attend CMS receive FRL, the current neighborhood choice plan has concentrated the poverty so that the poverty levels in our elementary schools is 84.3 percent; in middle schools it is 69.34 percent; and in high schools it is 62.12 percent. Most educational experts believe it is extremely difficult to educate children in high poverty schools.

In an effort to make Focus Schools work, CMS promised to: Reduce student-teacher ratios (one teacher per 16 students); provide additional instructional supplies and materials; and add incentives for teachers to attract them to Focus Schools. The two most important steps that must be taken, in order for children in Focus Schools to have at least a chance for a sound basic education, is to provide quality teachers and small class sizes. The June 6, 2005 Charlotte Observer published an article entitled “CMS teacher incentives.” The article proclaimed that the No. 1 priority for this year for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board is to have effective, high quality teachers in all classrooms. Just three months later, September 2005, the Charlotte Observer published an article entitled “Teachers won’t be laid off by budget.” The Board of Education, by a vote of 7-to-2, voted for a budget eliminating signing bonuses and other perks designed to attract staff to needy schools. CMS, with this unconscionable vote, must know how extremely difficult it will be for children in Focus Schools to receive any kind of decent education without experienced, quality teachers.

The bonds, if passed in November, will authorize CMS to build only one school in District 2, no schools in District 3 and no schools in District 4. The only way Districts 2, 3 and 4 can accommodate 23,850 new poor and minority students in the existing schools, plus one new school, is to do away with the promise of small class sizes for the Focus Schools. Without experienced, qualified teachers and small class sizes, you haven’t got a snow ball’s chance of giving children in Districts 2, 3 and 4 that attend high poverty schools a sound basic education. It may be that Commissioner Valerie Woodard was the only elected black official that voted against the bonds because she is one of the few black elected officials that regularly attends black forums such as The Tuesday Morning Breakfast, NAACP meetings and Charlotte Black Political Caucus meetings. It is fair to mention that the Charlotte Black Political Caucus held a Town Hall open to discussion on the pros and cons of the bonds. At the conclusion of the discussion, which featured representatives from the Chamber and CMS, a survey of the participants indicated that they are not in favor of voting for the bonds by a margin of 2-to-1.

Richard A. McElrath, Sr.
Founder, People United For Education;
Chairman, Education Committee,
Charlotte Black Political Caucus

Please don’t turn the fight at North Meck into a reason to vote for school bonds. The proposed package includes no relief for crowding at North Meck.

CMS should have built two high schools to accommodate the north’s true growth, instead of simultaneously building Hopewell in the north and Waddell in the south under the apparent belief that “if we put one here, then we have to put one there.”

Today Waddell has been turned into a partial magnet for foreign languages because in its four years of existence it has failed to fill its seat capacity.

Throwing more money at CMS will not fix its mismanagement of money.

Amy Hallman
Huntersville

Observer Article

Charlotte Post Editorial - Oct 22, 2005
Excerpt...

The school bond package is the most challenging of these four. That is why it is important to distinguish between myths and facts surrounding this issue. The proposed $427 million will be used on school construction projects, including 10 new schools, renovations and additions to 14 schools and numerous life-cycle replacements and structural improvements throughout the system.

Several of these projects directly affect schools with large populations of African-American students. With current enrollment at 120,000 and 53,000 new students expected in the next ten years, existing facilities cannot handle that. We must prepare for growth as we struggle with the current capacity challenges.
There are two different groups of citizens who oversee how bond money is used. The Bond Oversight Committee is appointed by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education. There are three African-Americans out of nine serving on this committee. The Citizens Capital Budget Advisory Committee is appointed by the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners. There are two African-American members out of 11 serving on that committee.

SARAH STEVENSON is chair of the Tuesday Morning Breakfast Forum, Community Affairs chair of the Black Political Caucus and is involved with numerous other social and civic organizations.