School board seeks public input

The Sisters School Board has decided to aggressively reach out to voters before making any firm decisions on when to once again seek a bond for a new high school.

Foremost in the members' minds was the recent defeat, on November 7, of the district's $22 million bond. The passage of the four-year local option levy, however, coupled to the fact that the bond was defeated by a slender margin, clearly invigorated the five-members to consider trying again.

At a four-hour, November 27 workshop, consensus was reached that two-way communication must be improved for a future bond effort to be successful.

The board decided to hold a special 7 p.m. Thursday meeting, November 30, at the Ponderosa Lodge, to sound its community supporters for input on how to improve the message to voters and to persuade opponents of the necessity of the bond.

School Superintendent Steve Swisher emphasized, "We need active listening in community mode -- to engage in conversation those who may have voted 'no' and really take note -- before (we) march off and make a decision."

The data will be used, according to board chair Bill Reed, to prepare an information sheet and questionnaire that will be mailed to voters, perhaps before Christmas.

Swisher explained that several complex financial issues needed to be better explained to citizens, but that that could only occur after more information was gathered.

Member Glen Lasken concurred.

"We need to reach 10 percent of those that voted 'no'. "We need to be more responsive and we have to be more detailed -- we need to add a lot more meat with the potatoes."

Speaking of the 30-acre parcel of Sisters land which the district owns, Swisher said, "We need a definitive statement about what our plans are for the Lundgren Mills property."

Swisher added, "We also need to be clear about the amount that will be needed for the high school repairs (when the damage assessments are completed), as well as the intent for future use of the middle school."

Board members said that options for the middle school might involve outright sale of the property, reserving part of the parcel for future expansion of the elementary school, utilization of some of its space for administration offices, or providing the location of a community center.

All members felt that a key part of any next attempt would be providing more specific information about the community's vision of a new high school.

"After an architect has presented a general plan for the design of the high school, voters will be more supportive," member Steve Keeton said.

Swisher mentioned that the next year would provide four election opportunities, with March being the earliest.

He pointed out the probability of carrying on the momentum of the previous support, and the likelihood that the ballot would be short in March.

Member Heather Wester, however, was more cautious.

"I'd like to wait until the repair of the high school is settled," she said. "I think we should gather more information first."

Lasken added, "I'm not so much for a May date as not for March -- I'm not ready to charge ahead."

The board agreed to defer any date decision until community input could be tabulated and assessed.

To place the issue before voters in March, an application would have to be submitted by January 11.

The next regular board meeting is January 8.