MyUsername

I wouldn't give CARE too much credit. For example, Shaw had a better performance than Bruney on KBTV. If the election had been really close, maybe. But it was 4 to 1. With those kind of numbers, it's not a stretch to think the bond would have failed without CARE's involvement. Besides, from my perspective anyway, the media push was about even on both sides. I'd even give a slight edge to the pro-bond crowd. The superintendent had a series of articles on either the PA News or Beaumont Enterprise. I recall clearly the first time I heard about the bond. My first response was "Wow, that seems awfully high to me." When I asked this person if he thought that would pass, he said, "Oh, yeah. It should pass easily." Now what was that sentiment based on? The wishes of the Board and the Committee? It certainly wasn't based on an understanding of what the voters would approve. The tragedy of this debacle is we've wasted time. I've read the LANWalton report. They probably have it just about right, IMO. Guess what. It doesn't matter. Bismarck had it right. Politics is the art of the possible. Castigating 3200 voters for looking out for their perceived best interests isn't going to get the job done. Quite the opposite, I'd say. Sure, some people will vote no every time. Those people aren't even in the game. But I heard a lot of people say they'd support a bond, just not THIS bond. Find out what those people will support.

The Board and Bond Committee must have been working in an echo chamber. I can't think of another rationale, but I'd be interested in other POV's. I must admit, I wasn't really impressed by CARE. The way this thing went before the voters made their job easy.

Does seem strange, doesn't it?. I suppose if Weaver ran, he would have been re-elected, too. But one of the incumbents did lose. I hope that's enough to focus the collective mind of the Board.

IMHO the Board went about the bond proposal in the wrong way. It should have been well-established what the taxpayers would support before putting anything up for a vote. The election should have been a forgone conclusion; merely a ratification of a community agreement. Obviously the Board and the Bond Committee seriously misread the voters. The only conclusion I can reach is that a broad cross-section of the community wasn't represented during the process. Otherwise, how could the Board not know that this particular bond had no chance of passage? Serious dialogue only started once it became obvious that "NO" might win the day. It was too late. The die was already cast. I think the Nederland would support a bond. But let's find out what the taxpayers will pay for before we call for another bond election. We'll end up with the same result again if we don't get the buy-in of our citizens upfront. We shouldn't look at this as an end - just a step in the process. The needs still exist. And because of the bond election we've had some interesting conversations taking place. Many of those opposed to this bond say they can support a different package. Let's find out if that's true. I call on the NISD Board to continue their hard work on this issue. The kids of Nederland deserve no less!