Apathy equals higher taxes

Our school board just doesn't get it.

We're in a deep recession, some folks are in serious trouble, and there is stiff competition for our tax dollars. Our school and community leaders claim we have the best district in the state. Therefore, it seems logical the district could give up a little to make a little more available to the elderly, handicapped, mentally ill, and parents that can't adequately care for their kids. It's extremely arrogant to assume schools are the only need in this community.

Next year, if the local option tax is passed, the district will have approximately 1,200 students and a budget of about $12 million down substantially from this year due mostly to lower enrollment.  That's about $10,000 in funding per student. This is a 50 percent increase over 2004-2005, the first year after the option was last approved and spending per student was $6,722. Average class size is now 23, which equates to $230,000 in spending per classroom per year. That's a lot of money.

The school board could be counting on apathy to get the levy passed. Too many people on the "no" side may not vote thinking that, as it was before the last election, the 50 percent rule applies. This rule meant that not voting was virtually equivalent to a no vote. No more. Now apathy works against the taxpayer because we can be assured the people who benefit from getting more of our money will turn out the "yes" vote. This past November they were organized, twisted arms, and spent a lot of money.

The home schooling scandal, the fight with the Department of Education, the testing fiasco, the lawsuits on record keeping and selling bonds without voter approval have cost the district money, reputation, and considerable goodwill. In all cases, the school board has been generally unaccountable, defiant, and unwilling to admit mistakes.

Three things should happen before we consider approving the local option tax, in order of priority:

1. The board should provide information that we can all understand that tells us how approximately a quarter-million dollars per classroom is spent; it could be as simple as a pie chart.

2. There should be a special meeting where the district can present its case for the new tax and the media and public can ask questions about budgets and costs.

3. The two longest-standing board members should resign. Why give the characters that are responsible for past blunders an opportunity to do it again? If they really cared about the kids, they would get out of the way to increase the probability of getting the funding they claim is so desperately needed.

Children are our future, and it is imperative we provide them a good education. However, there are many examples suggesting that more money in and of itself is not the answer. For instance, there are several school districts in Oregon that have a much higher local option tax than Sisters, and I'm certain our district and community leaders would not concede they provide a better education experience. If the district can reasonably show that the additional money is really necessary without using smoke and mirrors, then we should approve the local option tax and if not, we shouldn't.

In the private sector, a 10 percent reduction in direct operating costs and overhead is not considered a big deal; it spurs creativity, innovation and efficiency. This is a very deep recession that's going to last a long time. We have a duty to ask tough questions. I trust the editor and reporters of this newspaper will demand answers to those questions.

By the time most of us learned the local option levy was going to be on the March ballot, it was too late to file a statement to be published in the voter guide. Did the school board time its action to prevent negative comments? Please stay involved and vote on March 10, don't let apathy increase your taxes.