Practically Speaking

Well, at least we can be thankful that the school board had the good judgment to dump 4K:

      www.jsonline.com/.../index.aspx

By the way, we can always recoup some of our referendum loss by dogging the board to reduce it's annual operating expenses and pay the bond issue down early.

The only thing set in stone is the fact that nothing will get better over at elmbrook heaven until the voters get and remain active and vocal.

This post is really whiny.

If the voters didn't show up, all the better for the rest of us.  I never complain when someone else doesn't vote, it likely means they don't care.  It makes my vote more powerful, and I do care.

A simple majority voted in favor of a needed referendum that was cut in half from the last time.  That is democracy in action.  You have more control over these referenda than virtually any other government expenditure.  It would be a bad idea to tie the hands of a board, things can change fast.  Don't worry about protecting the voters of Germantown, I suspect they can figure out how to vote on their referendum.

Get over it, Kyle.....

Kyle's reply: I am not concerned for Germantown. More than likely they will do as Hartford did. My concern is for taxpayers in general and getting the best plans for the money. Sadly, ours is a done deal, and it is NOT the best plan for the money. 

To clarify, the 2008 referendum question dollar amount was not cut in half, just the amount on our tax bill. I hardly call air conditioning schools and gymnasiums a need!

Our referendum does nothing to address maintaining what we have and only increases the maintenance cost burden. (Adding 1.4 acres of new roof area for the gym related areas adds to our maintenance woes.)

I pretty much agree with Contrarian, why are we discussing Germantown. They have the same rights to vote that we did, let them have their vote. Brookfield voted for the second referendum, maybe not everything in the plan is perfect, but it was good enough for majority vote.

I don't agree that the No voters just didn't turn out, I think about the same proportion of Yes/No voters from last year turned out, it just happens that some of those that voted No last year decided that the new referendum is reasonable.

If it was true, that all the No voters ran and hid during election day, then that is their choice.

I wish, like you, that new referendums always have some new feature, and should not just be a direct recycle. This would save time and taxpayer money. To have some moratorium on a second referendum would not be reasonable, what if the issue was about some critical public safety measure and the original referendum was poorly prepared for whatever reason, should the safety measure need to wait 2 or 3 years for what might be some change in wording before the referedum could be brought before voters again?  I would rather see alot of referendums put to the voters over and over until a compromise is reached with the voters, rather than have a board decide the issue for us.

Sometimes the process works, the Elmbrook referendum was in this manner.

The original was too high in price for voting taxpayers, and this years referendum, which was drastically modified can had large cuts from the original, ended up being a compromise that satisfied the majority of the taxpaying voters.

The voters have spoken twice on this, once they said it is too much, cut it down;. It was cut down, and the voters decided it was reasonable to fund our schools and assure they remain something in which we can be proud as a community.

Kyle's reply: Germantown was just an example in the current news of a board that brought back the same referendum 2 times within the same year.

Jay Weber mentioned that taxpayers need a breather between referendums, hence the moratorium. IF there was a moratorium, maybe boards would be more responsible in bringing a practical solution the first time instead of the usual pie in the sky wish list.

Just because Elmbrook has decided on their referendum does not mean we are off the hook for other school district's referendums. Elmbrook is a " Primary Aid District", due to our large tax base, we send more money to the state than we get back. Some of our money goes to other district's referendums, so other district's referendums still are of interest to me.

Kyle, I don't think Contrarian got the point of your post at all...but he/she never does.  Ignore the negativity of his/her comments since they are always the same...meaningless and pointless.  If I recall, he/she is not a member of our community and it's laughable for him/her to tell you not to worry about Germantown when he/she worries about Elmbrook.  I understood the point you were making and I agree with you wholeheartedly.  Keep up the good work and consider the source of comments like "get over it Kyle".

Sorry, Intewedm, you are wrong on all your points.

The negativity is not mine.  Kyle started shortly after the election with wondering why some people cast ballots but chose to not vote on the election, turnout, etc.  Now, months later, she still can't get past the fact that a majority spoke, and democracy works. She does not acknowledge that the second referendum was much smaller than the first.

The topics of HSST and fatigue are not believable.  There was ample community discussion of the topic, people made up their own minds and voted.  If the NO voters lacked the organization or will to win, then complaining about the process should not be their next resort.

There is no stronger representative government than our school boards.  To get to a referendum, a group of elected board members must vote to put the bond up to an election, then have the community cast ballots.  There are three checks before expenditure becomes law.  Can you think of more restrictive government spending?  I can't.  There is no need to restrict this process more.

Finally, your recall is wrong.  I live in Elmbrook district, send my kids to school here, and pay taxes here.

Kyle's reply: I would like to weigh in here, since I did write the posting and I think I know my intent--even if I did not communicate it effectively. This post was to have addressed the problem of numerous referendums. I was just using ours as an example. I think Intewedm understood that, but he can speak for himself.

I believe taxpayers should get a "breather" in between referendums, hence the title: Taxpayer's need a referendum reprieve. Usually school districts must send 3 referendums to the public before passage: 1st one is pie in the sky, 2nd is somewhat less, and 3rd is finally what is perceived as really needed--and so it passes.

I mentioned HSST as an explanation of why Elmbrook's passed on the 2nd try instead of the usual 3rd.

The 2 Germantown referendums in one year are what prompted Jay Weber to talk about the habit of numerous referendums, and he mentioned the idea of some sort of moratorium or at the very least 2 year gap between referendums.

Weber also brought up the fact that referendums in districts that receive more money from the state than they send, cost all state taxpayers money. Since I had previously blogged about Janesville receiving 25% of their referendum costs from the state and Elmbrook is a primary aid district (sends more money than it receives), I thought it a good example of how other community's referendums still affect Elmbrook taxpayers.

I thought stating that the amount on our tax bill was cut in half did acknowledge that the 2nd try was a smaller dollar amount. Specifically, it was about 1/3 less. Orig. $108mil, 2nd $62mil.

Kyle, I understood, and Contrarian still doesn't get it.  Remedial reading courses appear to be in order with special attention paid to comprehension!  Your points are perfectly clear and the fact that the number of "yes" votes remained about the same while the number of "no" votes decreased by about the same number that the total votes decreased indicates you are exactly correct.  (I think that last sentence was to0 long for "you-know-who" to digest.)

Kyle's reply: I think maybe the problem is this... If you are reading the post in the context of the title and with an open mind, the points come through as they should? But if you are reading the post looking to be contrary--you might jump to wrong conclusions? But can we try not to make personal attacks and just stick to the subject? Personal attacks make me uncomfortable. (I would just edit out, but I am not supposed to.)

We all now owe Intewedm a deep debt of gratitude.  He has crystallized why his argument (and by extention, Kyle's argument) is really weak.

His last long sentence claim to show that he knows that the only change from last year to this year was that NO voters didn't show up.  Problem is, this argument is pure speculation.  To prove the point, one would have to know who voted last time, how they voted, who showed up this time, were they the same people as last time, how they voted, and that no one crossed over from No to Yes.  In our democracy, all of those are unknowable.  You both have built an argument on sheer speculation.  Further, you somehow suggest that NO voters are more suseptible to fatigue than Yes voters--another unbelievable and unknowable assertion.  Based on this, you want to change our election rules?

I am sticking to the point.  Kyle argued that somehow democracy is served by less voting.  I pointed out (twice) that there is no greater control over spending than a local referendum requiring (a) an elected board, to (b) vote to put a bond on the ballot (c) with a simple majority of the voters saying Yes before the bond is issued.  Kyle is convinced that she knows the truth, that the system is designed to subvert our desires, and she must defend us from ourselves.  No name calling here, but I think that is a weak argument based on an unsubstantiated opinion about what happens in secrecy of the voting booth.  

I do have an open mind, but unless you have a better argument, lets end this nonsense now.

Kyle's reply: I understand your bias toward school board issues. But let's face it, the Yes position is promoted by the district. They have full time staff and the ability to print and distribute so called "informational only" materials--all paid for by the taxpayers! The Yes position is heavily promoted to school parents and school groups--who are all highly motivated to vote, and on the cable broadcast.

There is no opportunity in these "informational only" pitches for any alternative solution. The media is also slanted toward the Yes side--remember the color picture of the bad chemistry cabinets in the paper or the TV piece with the interview of the Yes leader and students and the leaking pipe? Did those pieces ever ask why the school district allowed that kind of neglect to continue, since the repair of those two items in no way required a referendum?

(True, the citizen Yes group of 2007 did organize on their own and printed signs, some literature, ran an ad, made a video, etc. The hastily organized 2008 group, rand an ad and used school district materials to distribute. They had the advantage of school directories as possible contacts.)

The No voter must find other like minded people, organize, gather donations, gather a workforce to distribute fliers and/or signs, design the flier/sign, have fliers printed, and then distribute. It is purely grassroots. To state that the two sides of the referendum are on equal footing is ridiculous. I am comparing the No group to the school district, not the citizen Yes group.

And now I am getting comment fatigue. Since this post was really about the broader issue of referendum after referendum pitches to Wisconsin taxpayers and how Elmbrook pays a portion of some of these other referendums. If you feel the need for further correspondence, email me personally.