Texting, School, & The Man

I've been following the ACLU's charge of violation of privacy against Monarch High School: the gist is that some sophomore in trouble for loitering had his cell phone snagged by the school's security guard as it was a "distraction." The rent-a-cop then read his text messages, incriminating requests for dope to other students. The security guard then contacted those students via text posing as a student to see what else he could dig up.

That's shady. The kid's parents are of course worked up over the invasion of privacy, not the dope conversations. Regardless, where does privacy end at school? I don't recall ever imagining a sense of privacy at school growing up; maybe it was the first years in parochial school that got me used to (and subsequently hyper-sensitive to) other people presuming to be in your business all the time...

Read the ACLU's legal accusations here.

School District Invites Oversight

The Boulder Valley School District is forming a Citizens' Oversight Committee regarding the recently passed bond issue. The committee will be made up of faculty, staff and citizens from District communities representing a range of interests/expertise. Applications for this committee are due by 4:30 PM, January 8, 2007. You can find the application and details here or call Robert Hammond, BVSD COO at 303-447-5019.

The commitment involves a two- or three-year term. Given the District's history of spending decisions in the past, this volunteer effort may actually have a good turnout of applicants. Plus, being involved with this issue committee members can be certain whoever the new Superintendent is understands the priorities and agencies of the Bond's projects. (Dr. Garcia retires the end of this school year.)

Election Results - Most Taxes Fail in East Boulder County

People in Denver were still waiting to vote at 10:00 PM because of computer breakdowns, ballot shortages and other issues that likely should never have been a factor. When you can listen on the radio to the declared victor for governor or other issue races - while still waiting to cast your vote - it makes a mockery of the process. Talk about instilling a feeling of worthlessness to a person's vote. Denver Mayor Hickenlooper spent the night apologizing and scrambling to explain how the Denver Election Commission failed to prepare for the day.

Thankfully Boulder County did not grab headlines like in 2004 for delayed ballot counting or any major computer screw-ups. However, the County website set up to display results is decidedly ugly and less user-friendly than I prefer. Do we really need to see a breakdown of registered votes and their turnout percentages for various constituencies first? If we're bothering to use the County's website at all, we're looking for County ballot issue and candidate race info first.

To see results for eastern Boulder County issues and races, scroll down and look to the left side of the page. Of course, theses are not yet "official" results.

Three taxes failed that I had advocated for in the Yellow Scene this month: 2B in Longmont, 2A in Louisville and 2A in Superior. The anti-tax mentality won out over the rationale and pragmatic reasons for each. Longmont refused to tax overnight, out-of-town visitors; Louisville avoided the ability to tax out-of-town major purchases, and Superior, the worst of all, simply refused to step up and start to fund their own library services.

2C in Lafayette has passed as well as the Boulder Valley School District Bond; both overcoming deep skepticism that the authority/money granted will be handled appropriately by officials. More on 2C as we see how Lafayette City Council words the ordinance it will now create.

I must say Superior's vote surprises me most of all. What's up with that? Read Superior Trustee Jeff Chu's imploring letter to the editor of the Superior Observer asking for 2A's passage.

Did any results surprise you? Anger you? Anyone ready to demand a recount? I'm stuck on this Superior vote...

Only Half the Story

This week's Louisville Times and Superior Observer give a lot of detail as to how the 3A ballot measure would help improve school facilities. We've already brought up the issue in this forum, however it deserves another mention. The Louisville Times missed an important angle to the topic - why some people are not convinced the School Bond vote is worth supporting. The article ends with the line "So far, no one has organized an opposition to the bond."

What?

The organization Boulder Valley School District Watch and the No on 3A website run by the Concerned Citizens for a Responsible Boulder Valley School District would beg to differ. On balance I'm likely going to vote for it, however the opposition deserves to be researched and definitely should be mentioned in an article that otherwise makes 3A sound like a no-brainer.

The Credibility Issue Remains on Boulder Valley School Bonds

In today's Daily Camera's letters to the editor, there are two distinct arguments for and against the Boulder Valley School District's $296 million bond request at the polls in November. The trust issue I described a few days ago is articulated by Dan Harrison of Nederland; the other point of view is offered by Ellen Marshall and David Harwood of Boulder.

Just scroll down past the hacky sack letters... What do you think?

The Schools Need Help - and Credibility

The Boulder Valley School District is asking voters to approve a $296 million bond in November, and the word is that the campaign is struggling. Donations are not as high as was hoped, and it's likely voters won't even see a direct mail piece. (The above bond amount was corrected from a previous post I made - thank you to anonymous who posted a comment on 10/9/06.)

Ballot Issue 3A - if passed - would give BVSD money for outdated capital equipment such as electrical upgrades, windows, installing air conditioning in schools without, making schools ADA accessible, and computer upgrades. While all defensible as needs, BVSD is fighting a credibility battle. Many people feel the District's last two bond requests put money into different expenses than voters were told they would go. In fact, there is formal opposition on the No on 3A website and the BVSD Watch group's website. The opposition says "BVSD wants $300 million, at a true cost to taxpayers of more than $600 million, to repair and upgrade schools. But the 3A bond doesn't tie BVSD to do a single "promised" item in their "Master Plan." That plan can be changed any time BVSD desires without voter approval. Think you'll get a new parking lot, gym, A/C for your school? Think again. If it's not in the Bond (and it's not), there's no guarantee it will happen."

Helayne Jones, President of the BVSD Board of Education, said in a Daily Camera Editorial that if this bond issue passes, "each of us as individuals and collectively as a school board commits to extensive stakeholder involvement in both design and construction planning. Internal stakeholders will include parents, teachers, and administrators. External stakeholders will include neighboring residents and businesses, local government, the environmental community, historic preservation organizations, etc." Read BVSD facilities threaten academic excellence.

Check out the 3A campaign's arguments and see if you're convinced. The schools need the money, just make sure you think the wording of the ballot will have the results supporters promise.