Speak-Up response from April 18th edition

The Sunday, April 18th, edition of the Springfield News-Sun had three comments in the SPEAK UP section concerning the Northeastern Local School District. I would like to address these comments, as they are somewhat misleading and not entirely factual.

As has been the "spirit" of this blog, I encourage everyone who reads my blog to research my response or any articles I write to assure I am responding factually and sincerely. It is most important that the truth is presented on all sides so the people can make informed decisions about any issue, especially those affecting the school district.


COMMENT #1:
"Re Northeastern school tax: I’ll vote “yes” and give up my hard-earned $7,000 over 28 years only when the staff and teachers do the same. I keep hearing, “It’s all about the kids,” but I don’t see anyone sacrificing other than the homeowners."


Thank you for your comment. Those members of our faculty, staff and administration who reside in the district are homeowners also and would "sacrifice" for the good of the schools just like other "homeowners" in the district. They are not exempt from their share of the property tax. In addition, many contribute countless hours of volunteering for the levy, trying to get the facts out about our schools. In addition, those who do not reside in the district also donate a lot of time, effort and even contribute their money toward the levy campaign.



COMMENT #2:
"Northeastern voters...don’t be lulled into complacency by the school board’s efforts to “downsize” their plan. There may be fewer new buildings, but the total price tag of over $100 million hasn’t changed. The board also hasn’t dealt with the need to come back to voters within two years for an operating levy. When will they understand, “No” means “no!”"


Thank you for your comment. The "downsizing" of the plan is not downsizing as much as listening to the comments from voters who said they had issues with the original plan. Those issues were:
(1) the voters wanted to keep a building in South Vienna.
(2) they wanted to keep Kenton Ridge.
(3) they didn't want 37 years to repay the cost.
(4) they didn't want an income tax.
(5) they were cautious about the economy.

The Board of Education, the Core Committee and the Building Advisory Committee looked at these concerns and worked out several plans to address these issues. With the aid of the Ohio School Facility Commission (OSFC), the plans were presented to the voters in two community meetings and one board meeting. The plan selected was the one most popular with the people who attended the meetings.

The only "downsizing" was that we could no longer have the extra gymnasiums and auditoriums that the original plan contained. These Locally Funded Initiatives (LFI's) were the cause for the Income Tax. Since we can only place an income tax on the ballot twice in a 12 month period, this was no longer an option.

By constructing a PK-5 building in South Vienna, renovating or redesigning Kenton Ridge and then adding onto KR, constructing a PK-5 building at Northridge site, we were able to reduce the cost from $111 million (cost without the LFI's) to about $103 million (exact figures will be coming from the OSFC shortly). This plan addresses 4 of the 5 issues. The issue of the economy is one that will be aided when construction begins and many local companies will have the opportunity to bid on these jobs.

Addressing your issue about coming back with an operating levy. The board never said we wouldn't be placing an operating levy on the ballot, nor did we give any time frame. In this economy, cost continue to rise due to inflation. Pending no cuts from the State Legislature and no additional unfunded mandates from the Ohio Department of Education and the Legislature, we are hopeful that additional operating money may be delayed. Should the ODE or the Legislature place more unfunded mandates or further cuts to education, then we will look first at cutting costs without effecting children's education. When the cuts affect education, then we will address it with the residents to see what they wish to do.



COMMENT #3:
"When the Northeastern levy comes up again, just say “no.” I told them about the Pepsi Refresh project and they didn’t even try."


Thank you for your comment. I know this situation very well, because you discussed it with Mr. Broderick and me prior to our March board meeting. You failed to provide the whole story in your comment. However, I will address the facts.

First, you showed Mr. Broderick and me samples of dollars that could be gained by this promotion. Mr. Broderick and I stated at the time that the district could not be a "sponsor" of one product over another, but that you should direct this to our Athletic Directors, teachers, booster organizations or other groups. We, in fact, encouraged you to talk with the distict's organizations and groups.

The school district, as an entity, could not promote one product over another. It would not be ethical nor would it be legal. I don't recall any of the samples you showed being a school district. There were many groups, organizations, classes and a school building, but no school districts in the samples that I saw.

It is not a case that we "didn't try", it was a case that we could not follow through with the program. We did suggest that you talk with the organizations in our district and see if they have any interest.

For those who are interested in learning about the Pepsi Refresh project, go to www.refresheverything.com. There you will find a lot of information on how to generate money for your club or organization.