Pages
▼
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Keep It Local -- Outside Consultants Hurt Local Politics
South Dakota War College notes (and I note with dismay) the intrusion of an out-of-state consultant in a Meade County School District bond issue. See my comment there on how local politics should stay local. I plan to vote against the gym-bond issue here in Madison Tuesday, but I wouldn't want some outsider with his own agenda intruding on what ought to be a local discussion. Local politics should provide a community a chance to have a conversation with itself, not let outsiders profit from sloganeering and disinformation that obscures what really matters to the locals.
The wonderful part of Madison's gymnasium campaign is that it is ALL local, Madison people, Madison private money campaigning, Madison's creativity in its brochures and ads, no consultants from the outside. This campaign is driven solely by a perceived need in our community with committee volunteers of all religions, income levels and careers. Obviously, when taxes are affected, people have strong opinions, but our conservative voting public has not allowed a usable high school gym for a century. Whether the gym passes with its 61% super majority on Tuesday or dies by the pencils of a conservative 41% minority is yet to be known. So, even though you live near Lake Herman and can't vote on the issue, how do you feel about the City's gift of $100,000 to the District for energy conservation?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I'd go so far as to call the campaign "wonderful." I am relieved that we thus far seem to have avoided meddling from outside interests. But locals can still come up with bad ideas, and at this point, after one opt-out last year and the possibility of more in the near future (well before the 25-year debt of the new gym would be paid off), locking our public funding into a project that won't directly contribute to the educational mission of the school doesn't seem wise. More on that argument later....
ReplyDeleteBut on the other ballot issue: since you've asked, anonymous, I'll offer my somewhat mixed view. The city in its September resolution making the donation offers a fair rationale for helping the school district: the district's resources are tight, we want to help. If the city has extra money sitting around in its electric fund, I can certainly think of worse things the city commission could have voted to do with it (like, oh, say, outside marketing consultants, slogans and banners). Plus, Superintendent Palleria is on record (see his letter the to the editor, MDL, 2007.04.04) saying the school will use the money for upgrading lighting and other utilities to more efficient equipment, which will save the district money. Perfectly sensible.
Still, I have to wonder what the city is doing making a profit on electricity in the first place. If I were a city electric customer, I'd expect my electric bill to reflect the cost of making electricity, maintaining the physical plant, and paying the employees who kept my lights on. If the city charges more than necessary, there's a strong argument for refunds (I think that's what my electric co-op, Sioux Valley, does) or lower rates next year. Then the city would leave more money out in the economy where the school could get a shot at it through its own tax levy increases or further opt-outs. Which is the better approach? I'm honestly not sure. I welcome further comments!
[And just in case anyone is thinking, "Hey! Madville Times is contradicting himself, sticking his nose in Madison's business when he's an outsider just like those conniving consultants!" permit me to remind my readership that while I live outside the city limits and thus can't vote on city issues or run for mayor (sorry, Lee!), Madison is my community. Madison gets most of my sales tax, as my wife and I make a concerted effort to buy local when possible. Madison's policies and economic progress directly affect the well-being of my family and friends. I thus have a very keen interest in seeing Madison do good things. Hence, this blog.]
Ah, the perils of Easter break -- too much time for me to sit around blogging! :-)
ReplyDeleteNow, a few comments from the resident debate coach on anonymous's extolling of the virtues of the gym campaign:
ReplyDelete1. "creativity in brochures and ads"? How about creativity in a private fundraising campaign?
2. "perceived need" -- emphasis on the word perceived.
3. "committee volunteers of all religions, income levels and careers" -- I don't have an exact demographic breakdown, but I'll bet we could find a diversity of religions, income levels, and careers among the opponents of the bond issue as well. Diversity on a committee is not a reason in itself to vote for or against a ballot measure.
4. "...our conservative voting public has not allowed a usable high school gym for a century." Maybe our conservative voting public simply has always prioritized other educational needs above a big sports arena. The kids have always had room to learn and play sports; the issue with the new gym is primarily making more room for spectators -- perhaps desirable, but not necessary from a public funding or educational standpoint. The fact that the voting public has never done what one wants does not represent an argument for doing what one wants.
5. "dies by the pencils of a conservative 41% minority"... could be. It could also be voted down by a conservative majority. Clever but groundless effort to portray opponents as a minority before we've even voted (reminiscent of Lenin's supporters naming themselves the "Bolsheviks", from the Russian word for majority, and their opponents "Mensheviks", from the Russian word for minority, even though neither group had a clear majority at first). Poll numbers, anyone?
6. And what's wrong with being conservative? Last November this community replaced a veteran liberal Democratic state legislator with a rookie big-business Republican. Sounds to me like this community is all about conservatism. (I welcome clarifications, definitions, sociopolitical analysis, etc.)
7. And don't forget, the really wonderful part of the opposition to Madison's gymnasium campaign is that it, too, is all local, Madison people, not spending any money (that I know of) campaigning, not cluttering the streets and stores with slick signs and brochures, no consultants from the outside... none of which has anything to do with the merits of the gym proposal itself -- it's just interesting to see how the same words Anonymous uses to extol his side can be used to extol mine.
So do I understand this right, Cory? You can't vote for the gym proposal, but if it passes, you have to pay $89.00 a year for it?
ReplyDeleteSounds like taxation without representation.
Let me clarify, David: there are two measures on the ballot tomorrow, the school bond issue to build the gym and the city's resolution to donate $100,000 surplus from its electric fund to the school district. The gym project is a school district issue, so everyone in the school district, residents of Madison and a fair portion of the surrounding country, gets to vote on that. If the gym project passes, we'll pay over a hundred dollars more a year (given our new, inflated property assessment by the county). The city's $100,000 is an action of the city commission, referred to a vote by the public. Only residents of Madison can vote on that issue. The passage of that measure has no direct impact on any bills I pay. The city measure doesn't raise taxes on anyone; it's profit the city has made on selling electric power.
ReplyDeleteThe brochure inserted in last night's newspaper had a blatant misspelling error on the brochure, "there" versus "their". Maybe proponents should have spent more time on grammar and spelling and less time shooting hoops?
ReplyDelete