The lingering impact of past school board decisions loomed large as the Stanley-Boyd Board of Education met Monday April 15 to consider the outcome of the April 2 referendum on building improvements.
Meeting in the high school library at 6:30 p.m., the school board was assembled to have its monthly conversation, and at the top of the list was the referendum results.
“Hi, how is everybody?” Tony Menard asked as the conversation got under way. A representative with CESA 10, Menard had helped orchestrate the campaign leading up to Tuesday April 2, with Stanley-Boyd siding with the 40 percent of school districts that rejected referendum questions on the ballot, up from 20 percent the year before. But while referendums across the state did poorly compared to a year ago, that wasn’t the only reason for local failure as the board saw it.
Board member Chad Verbeten said memory of the construction of the Oriole Park sports complex played into this referendum. The district surveyed residents on possible facility proposals. The athletic complex was ultimately built over about five years with funding built into the budget each year.
“Well you went and did it anyway,” Verbeten said of the community’s memory of Oriole Park and how it played into the vote.
Also among reasons given for the present referendum’s failure was a spike in negative social media two weeks out, making it hard to get ahead of the wave. Lance Carlson had a question for Menard.
“Would it have been better or worse to wait until fall?” He asked.
Menard noted in response that a full 40 percent of voters said they wouldn’t support anything in prevote surveys, an already high number. The referendum outcome had shocked CESA after past successes in recent years elsewhere, the mood of voters less open on a statewide level to taking on additional debt obligations.
Another factor to consider as well was revaluation of several municipalities in the district, which saw people’s tax bills increase if their property values had been undervalued. Stanley had been at 46 percent in favor before revaluation, while the actual vote came out much lower.
Another factor to consider in the failure of the district referendum was first time voters. The district had targeted registered voters prior to Tuesday, April 2, while the township’s reportedly saw many first time registrants in the voting booth. Board member Toni Seidl said she had talked with people who liked the video that the district had put on its website.
“We tried to get the information out there,” she said. Another point of feedback received was that the voters would support “education” spending.
“Well actually, we’re doing that,” board member Denise Hoffstatter said of the upper elementary remodel paid for through Fund 46 and scheduled this summer.
Shifting from why the referendum failed to what to do moving forward, the board noted strong support for moving the district office to the building entrance, but also caution, in light of the outcome.
“Well you did it anyway,” Verbeten said again in cautioning his fellow school board members on looking at individual aspects of the proposed building improvements from Tuesday’s referendum.
Looking forward to his summer, meanwhile, the district is moving ahead with an upper elementary remodel, as well as planned roof maintenance for the original school roof, the last roof section in need of maintenance. Verbeten summed up three takeaways:
1) The effect of revaluation
2) A need to be more proactive and communicate better, and
3) A learning lesson for the board
“What we thought was best for the school didn’t pass,” he said. “Sometimes that’s a blessing in disguise.”
