As all school districts must eventually face, USD 489 (Hays) and USD 466 (Scott City) had both determined that their facilities needed major upgrading and decided to float bond issues in their respective districts last fall. USD 489 is about three times larger, but they both provide for rural Kansas schools with similar types of need. However, one decided to use science-based community input and the academic resources of FHSU to help them inform the voters and obtain high quality data for determining how large of a bond the voters would support and what types of projects would cause them to oppose the bond. The other decided to balk at using research to measure what the voters want, opting instead for a strategy of informing the voters what they “should” want and basing community input on highly biased sources. Here are the results.
After listening to a proposal by the Docking Institute, USD 466 commissioned a bond survey that provided them with data estimating the proportion of voters who would support a bond of various sizes. The bond survey also identified which tentative construction projects were popular and which ones were bond killers. The USD 466 Board used the information to build a $25,000,000 bond proposal that the bond survey indicated would likely pass. The survey cost the district about $5,000. On Nov. 7, the bond passed 745 to 710. On their first try, USD 466 passed the largest bond a majority of voters would support, and the children attending school in Scott City will soon be getting the upgrades they urgently need.
After listening to a similar proposal in October of 2016 during a strategic planning session, one which the Docking Institute facilitated for free at the Superintendent’s request, the USD 489 Board subsequently ventured off on their own to prepare a bond reflecting what they thought the community “should” support. Numerous attempts by the Docking Institute to warn the Board of research suggesting their bond would fail or encourage them to conduct a bond survey were curtly ignored or rejected. The Board wasted undisclosed sums of money to develop and provide color mailings, Power Point presentations and food to the very few who attended their promotional events or read their condescending mailings. After publicly humiliating their critics, the Board floated a totally unrealistic bond in spring 2017 that, as predicted by Docking researchers, failed. But did they admit their mistakes, change strategies and commission a bond survey? No! Instead they lowered their expectations by $30 million and proceeded to repeat the exact same strategy six months later. This second bond, though tens of millions of dollars lower, failed by a greater margin than the first bond, suggesting that the voters are extremely frustrated with the gross incompetence demonstrated by their BOE. In less than one year, this Board wasted tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars (my estimate) trying to pass unpassable school bonds. As I predicted in my previous letter, re-elected Board President Lance Bickle’s response was, oh well, we’ll just try again next year. Who knows how many attempts it will take using this “shot in the dark” strategy, with each iteration costing precious time and money?
I had hoped the newly elected Board members, especially Greg Schwarz and Mike Walker, would bring some rationality and innovation to the process, which it has to a degree. But choosing the same Board President who has failed twice already and current discussions by the Board to bring in more consultants who know nothing of Hays and its culture suggest the Board is pursuing the same flawed strategies for a third time. Meanwhile, the Scott City kids get their learning resources now, while Hays kids will have to wait, and wait, and wait.
Gary Brinker, Hays