TEA of MN
Taxation & Educational Accountability of Minnesota
Rochester School Board
Links of Interest
|
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
Minnesota Association of Charter Schools
|
|
Where is the representation?
December 12, 2005 By Chris Miksanek |
 |
I ran for a position on
the
Rochester School Board in 2002 on the platform of representing all of
the school district stakeholders. At the time I found it remarkable that
issues dividing the community often found disproportionate support with
board members.
For instance, projects and expenditures that half the community opposed
were unanimously endorsed by the school board. Where was the
representation?
Little has changed in that regard three years later. With one exception.
One board member has demonstrated the courage to represent the
taxpayers; to ask the tough questions and endure the dramatic sighs and
eye-rolling.
Fred Daly asks little more of fellow board members than, in a time of
limited resources, to slow down and thoughtfully reconsider and prioritize
expenditures. He asks the board to recognize the detrimental effect a
double-digit levy increase has on the community and how it jeopardizes the
board's ability to appeal for
their support in the future. But rather than earn peer appreciation for
keeping the board's focus broad enough to include the community
stakeholders, he is routinely criticized and bullied by other board members.
|
No one has been more vocal criticizing Mr. Daly than board chairwoman
Kim Norton who recently expressed her disappointment that his "method of
speaking out is a little different than the rest of the board." But if
Norton even represents taxpayers or students at all, it is not obvious.
When she first came to the board, Norton saw a need for a fourth public
high school in Rochester, conservatively estimated to cost $40 million.
|
|
At the end of the day, we all share the same goal of providing quality
educational opportunities for our community's children. And while no one
has contributed more to that vision than the taxpayers with their
unprecedented funding, if they dare express concern about waste or
question expenditures they are insultingly labeled anti-education when
the converse is actually true.
By acting as the board's oversight committee, the taxpayers are
demonstrating great concern that the dollars invested in our children
are spent most effectively. Funding and staying involved: what better
way is there to demonstrate commitment to education? The board needs
more taxpayer representation to understand that and to stay grounded
because our community best benefits when discussion embraces all
viewpoints especially from those who speak "a little different."