Learning from the failed school bond

Published 12:01 pm Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Suppose you have 10 people at a party. You ask them to pay several hundred dollars for a project that will directly benefit three of them. Others will only benefit by knowing they have contributed to a “greater good.” How many do you think would say, “Yes, you can have my money?” I’m betting you would not get six to say “yes.”

That party is an imperfect analogy for the recent Vashon school bond election. State law requires that bonds for building or renovating school facilities be approved by 60 percent of the votes, but 60 percent of voters rarely agree to tax themselves for anything. Remember, the bond for the new high school passed by just nine votes.

It is even harder to get a 60 percent supermajority when the money is for athletic facilities, according to Piper Jaffrey, a firm that markets school bonds. Last year Piper Jaffrey surveyed people across the state regarding their views on school bonds. Just 48 percent of the respondents would support a bond for school athletic facilities. Only 50 percent supported building new facilities of any kind.

Our community supported the recent bond proposal by 53 percent — above the statewide survey numbers, but not enough to meet the 60 percent requirement for passage. State law bars school districts from surveying voters about why they voted as they did or what they would support in the future. When the bond failed, I heard school board members assuming they knew what would or would not pass the next time. Rather than having them speculate, I created a survey and particularly asked people who voted “no” to answer it. I received 180 responses, 126 of them from people who voted “no.” Amazingly, 101 people wrote comments, most of them thoughtful and helpful in understanding their thinking.

There are themes in the survey responses that the school district needs to heed. Seventy-four people, nearly 60 percent of the survey respondents who voted “no,” said they did not trust the process the district used to develop the bond proposal. I believe the district must develop the next proposal differently or it will fail, no matter the dollar amount or what is in it.

Unfortunately, the board is starting work on their next proposal without a plan for community involvement. When I pointed this out at their latest meeting, they responded that a “parallel” process could work. It isn’t easy to get community members to give up their time to provide input, often because they feel their input won’t be taken seriously and won’t make a difference. The board needs to immediately recruit diverse community members for an advisory committee. Provide the committee all the information on the problems with the current facilities. Let them ask hard questions and answer them. Then ask them to prioritize what should be in the next bond. They don’t have to reach consensus; their differing views are valuable indications of how the larger community feels.

The next bond proposal should reflect a compromise between those who think our students deserve great facilities, equal to the new high school, and those who value “making do” with marginal facilities as the “Vashon way.” Neither group will convince the other they are right, but a bond will not pass without support from people in both groups.

Another theme from the survey responses was opposition to artificial turf. Nearly 30 percent of the respondents said they would support the same bond proposal if it included grass instead. If the board still wants to consider artificial turf, they owe it to the public to bring experts — not vendors — to explain the health and environmental issues.

Skepticism and resentment regarding off-island students was another theme. The district has given up trying to explain why off-island students are beneficial, but the issue must be addressed. Lay out the facts clearly, make the explanation easy to find on the district website and provide handouts whenever you have public meetings. Do something.

The same is true with school funding. Many people want more money to go to the classroom before spending money on buildings. The state doesn’t give us that choice. The district must clearly and often explain that state law caps how much money the district can raise in local taxes for teachers, textbooks, and other operating costs. Every year, the school board is required to turn down tax money that exceeds the mandatory cap. Only the state can provide more money for the classroom.

Commenters also wondered whether poor maintenance was the reason these projects are needed. When I joined the school board in 2007, teachers complained they couldn’t get a broken pencil sharpener or burned-out light bulb replaced. Now the district has a regular cycle of inspecting all the facilities and proactively maintaining them. The district needs to let the public know that maintenance is being taken seriously. New roofs and HVAC systems are needed because they wear out.

I own some of the mistakes that contributed to the bond’s failure, but the “blame game” is not helpful. The current board has the opportunity to succeed the next time if they study the survey responses and significantly change their process going forward.

— Laura Wishik is a former two-term member of the school board.