Budget Discussion Redux

Lest anyone thinks that I have gone completely round the bend, I can assure you this is not the case. Please re-shelve your pitchforks and set the boiling tar down to a low simmer.

I've seen these people before. Not these specific people, mind you, but people like them. And the only way to fight fire is with a fair amount of fire of your own. Part of the issue from the previous board was the selling of the idea of the new school. It could have been presented to the voters a bit better. Kudos to the rational approach that the past board took: they presented reports and findings and pictures. But voters typically don't get swayed by things like rationality in elections. Emotions and gut feelings rule the day, and in an election not about international or national, or even state issues, but down and dirty local issues, the emotions surrounding hearth and home are magnified immensely. A thrice decorated Purple Heart veteran should have had a wide lead in a war situation over a rear echelon flyboy who won his wings through influence rather than action, but President John Kerry sits on the shelf of history with Presidents Thomas Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, and Walter Mondale as his companions.

The vociferous screamings of the Stop the School people won out. They won through a strong three pronged strategy; using an electorate that is weary of politicians, no matter the party or office; an effective combination of "on message" non-stop Stop the School and "zero message" no comment on what we're going to do; and through relentless attack and counter attack without cessation. The group that stays on message wins. Look at the board meetings from the past. It may be the same voices droning on and on over and over from the audience, sometimes even incoherently, but the message was Stop the School/Stop the Taxation loud and clear.

Now the tables have turned, and the audience is now on the board, and the board is now in the audience. This new board needs to be held to the same standards that the past board was held to. Giving them a "bye" at any point in the process now is a gimme point they didn't deserve to score. Mount an effective defense, certainly, but an effective offense is where the points are scored. There is nothing wrong with any of us putting on our William Hellmann, CPA or Marlys Mihok gadfly masks and standing there at the audience microphone requiring these public servants to serve the public, no matter how angry it might make some of the board's officers, er, officials.

Any time there is ever a question of what to do, ask yourself this question: What would the Stop the School candidates have said about this issue if Sandy Gibson was presenting it? Then do exactly what the Stop the Schoolers would have done.

Public officials require oversight by the public. Let me say that again with emphasis: Public officials REQUIRE oversight by the public. The parents watch the kids, judicial balances against executive and legislative. Its an accountability dance. And when the public doesn't want to dance, that's when things fall apart. In Kentucky, the recently defeated scandal plagued governor spent $65M out of an emergency $66m highway repairs fund. Talk about selling the family silver! I like the arrogance of power too: 'Former Transportation Secretary Bill Nighbert, who controlled spending from the fund, wouldn't discuss the spending yesterday, saying, "I'm not interested in taking up time commenting on anything like that."'

And so I question anything and everything a public official tells me. Not because I directly mistrust the person in the office, but because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. An official without oversight is a dictator, whether they're Boss Hogg in Hazzard County, or a President of the United States huddled over a speaker straining to hear the latest cell phone intercepts.

Perhaps this $1.25m transfer is completely legal. Then let's talk about it and make sure everyone is on board with it. Show us the legal precedents and let the discussions begin. Isn't this board pledged to be the "people's board?" Or maybe you're not interested in taking up time commenting on anything like that.

However, I see this transfer as akin to the first step in spending down Grandma's inheritance until it's gone, rather than spending 90% of the income (interest) gained and returning 10% to the fund so that it continues to grow and flourish. This is not responsible stewardship unless there is such an immediate need that this drastic action is required. And if this is the case...TELL US THIS! (I understand it raises some inconvenient questions about why you stopped the school and all, but, hey, life's just not fair sometimes.)

Anyone else care to use the soap box?