Friday, November 06, 2015

'Inappropriate" Bond Promotion

Has anyone in the school district ever used 'deceptive' (or illegal) tactics before?

2006 'First' school bond for $46 M high school  (aka, give us the money, trust us)  School children were used to bring home flyers to encourage a YES vote

2006 In a private Survey to ascertain public opinion on the school bond:
"The next day (9/28), between 8:15 AM and 10:55PM, the poll received an astounding 87 responses to the survey - even more astounding, 80 were STRONGLY IN FAVOR, 4 were somewhat in favor and 2 were opposed, but only a few were sent from the above mentioned IP addresses.

Are we now witnessing a spontaneous uprising of the masses in favor of better education of "the children" through bricks?

Friday, the deluge continued with 49 "responses" with a mere three opposed. The capping finality occurred late in the evening. The last 13 of the evening were posted from 10:08:07 PM to 10:22:38 from the same IP (Comcast) (or computer?) 13 responses in 14 minutes shows a great deal of thought and consideration, doesn't it."

Where did nearly all the respondent comments originate?  The  "Utah Educator Network IP" 
Read more here

2007:  TnT for 50% TAX Increase   "We're raising teacher salaries."  No, the Legislature did that.
"we, the truth seekers were informed that the school district was awarding a 3.5% pay increase to the school teachers at a cost of $2.6 million to the district. State legislative officials at the meeting were unclear if the district was taking credit for the pay increase mandated and funded by the state or if the local district had funded an addition increase. However, when asked for an estimate of the total payroll, (10, 20 or 80 million??), school officials were unable to come up with an a ready estimate. The figure, according to the 2007 budget, was $10,669,428. (Page 5, item 131) 3.5 % of that is $373,000 NOT $2.6 million."
2008:  In the campaign for the second try for a High School  ($59.5M, this time).  A local radio program was promoting the "fiscally responsible" - "let's be serious" concept.   Being offended by the opposition, two gentlemen from the School District arrived shortly after nearly ever program with a pre-recorded program promoting the virtues of new edifice.  (apparently prepared in the school, during school time and by school employees - who often arrived in a school driver ed vehicle.   (aka expending tax money to promote a bond election)

There's more,  (did we ever report being called to the 'Principal's (aka supt) office) . . . . . .  but, we just had another election;  maybe the 'tricks' will be reported, but it might sound like sour grapes for a loss.  (robo-calls to selected individuals, push survey, interesting donors, activities)   

No comments: