I am honored this morning to turn the show over to a fellow journalist. I first heard about Mindy Cameron back in the early '90s from my teaching friend Betty Fredricksen. Betty arranged for us to get acquainted, and later, Mindy kindly agreed to come to my journalism class and talk about her experiences in the news business.
A few members of that particular class moved on as writers/journalists: most notably, Erica Curless whose byline appears daily in the Spokesman-Review. Since retiring and moving full time to Sandpoint, Mindy has devoted a large chunk of her life toward the betterment of education here in Lake Pend Oreille School District 84. She now serves as a member of the school board.
Just for fun and to honor the dedication of our local school district trustees, I pulled some comments about the school board written by senior staff members of the Sandpoint High School Monticola staff for their 1923 yearbook. They precede Mindy's Q and A contribution focusing on tomorrow's school levy election.
One final comment. Please encourage folks to vote tomorrow. Also, encourage people to visit Slight Detour today to see Mindy's comments about the election. I hope they can be of some help to voters as they make their decision on this levy.
The Board of Education -- Sandpoint High School White Pine yearbook, 1914
The ordinary High School student, when he contemplates the educational system of his community is likely to think it consists chiefly of teachers, buildings, and equipment. He knows there is a board of trustees, but he does not usually realize what an important and vital part is played by the men and women of the school board who serve without pay or thought of pecuniary gain.
Independent School District Number One is especially fortunate in the personnel of its trustees. The five men and one woman constituting the local board are representative citizens of the highest type. Chosen by popular vote, they have been faithful to the trust imposed in them. They have employed in their official capacity the same progressive methods of integrity which characterize their actions in private life. Their motto seems to be that nothing is too good for the schools or for the young people of this city. Holding as they do, the purse-strings and deciding questions of general policy and finance, they have in their hands tremendous influence. Unselfish, impartial and devoted to the interests of the whole people, they wield this influence for the benefit of the whole people. Their reward will be found when the youth of Sandpoint more fully realize and appreciate the educational facilities provided by a generous public.
We who are to be voters and office-holders of tomorrow salute you who now hold the reins of power and who provide the training which is to fit us for the proper exercise of those duties soon to devolve upon us. School Board members: F.E. Catlin, W. L. Ellison, Mrs. G.H. Martin, President V. Godrey, A.K Bowden, and T. Solberg.
Q and A with Mindy Cameron. . . . . . . .
Full name: Melinda Cameron
Association with school district/for how long. What position do you hold on the school board?
I am vice chair of the school board, now completing my first three-year term. I plan to run for a second term this spring.
Other education-related activities:
Along with my husband, Bill Berg, I co-founded the Panhandle Alliance for Education five years ago. I continue to stay active with PAFE.
How long in Sandpoint?
I moved to Sandpoint six years ago, but have owned a small cabin here for 20 years and spent many weekends and summer vacations here.
What did you do before coming to Sandpoint?
My most recent job was editorial page editor of the Seattle Times, where I also wrote a personal opinion column. I worked at the Times for 20 years. Prior to that I was managing editor of the Lewiston Tribune, in Lewiston, Idaho. I have also worked for Idaho Public Television and the Idaho Statesman in Boise, so my Idaho connection is pretty deep.
Have you had children educated in the local school district? If so, their names and when they graduated? What do they do now?
My oldest son, Matt, graduated from Sandpoint High in 1984. He is now a mechanical engineer living in Portland, OR. My youngest son, Tim, went to Farmin-Stidwell and Sandpoint Middle School. He moved to Seattle in 1982 to live with me and attend high school. He is now the head chef of a restaurant north of Seattle.
Were you satisfied with their education locally?
The boys were living with their father (my ex-husband, Ken Cameron, a Sandpoint optometrist) while attending school in Sandpoint. Everything I knew about their schooling was quite satisfactory. They are now wonderful fathers and productive citizens and I credit their schooling for at least some of that!
Why have you dedicated yourself to educational issues in this area?
When I retired from the newspaper business I had two goals: move to our rural acreage in Sagle and get involved in the community. Doing something for local schools was a natural. My interest in public education goes way back to when my father was a member of the school board in the district where I attended schools (Beaverton, Oregon). As a journalist I often researched and wrote about public education.
The school district was very controversial when I moved here and I decided I wanted to put my energy into doing something positive about the schools. Teachers, students and families should not have to pay the price for lack of quality leadership at the board and administrative level. That led me and Bill to recruit other like-minded people for a steering committee that resulted in PAFE.
When a vacancy occurred in my school district zone I decided to run to continue my work with the schools in a more direct way.
What do you foresee as the major challenges our district faces over the next five-ten years?
Adequate funding will always be a challenge for public schools in Idaho. In our district another challenge is how the face of our community is changing. We are growing, but much of that growth is people like me – retired with no school-age children. At the same time families who move here bring with them high expectations for their children’s education. Also, despite the growth and healthy job climate, many children face hardships at home, including poverty and broken homes. Balancing the concerns of taxpayers, the expectations of parents and the needs of children from struggling families is an ongoing challenge. Finally, we cannot ignore the reality of a changing world. Our business community expects an educated workforce and our schools must provide a solid foundation for young people headed to college, work or vocational training, and, ultimately, citizenship.
Give the basic facts of Tuesday’s levy: how much, why, where to vote, voting hours, who can vote:
The levy total is $8,968,000 over two years. It is a replacement levy for the current maintenance and operation levy that expires June 30. The money will be used to pay for technology, textbooks and other curriculum materials, extracurricular activities, facility maintenance, teaching staff to maintain small class sizes, extra help for kindergartners who need a boost to be ready for 1st grade. The money also will be used to purchase the following equipment: two school buses, a boiler, two dishwashers, three convection ovens, a refrigerator and a freezer. The school kitchen items are important upgrades for health and safety of the school lunch program.
You must be registered to vote, but can register on voting day, March 20, at the County Courthouse. You can vote between 8 am and 8 pm at any polling site. All schools, with the exception of Sandpoint Middle School and Lake Pend Oreille High School (the alternative school), are polling places.
Why is success of the upcoming levy important in your eyes?
I am proud of the work of the school district in the past three years. We have first-rate financial management and a fine new district leader in Dick Cvitanich. Passage of this levy will mean we can continue the good work that is well underway. Failure means deep, deep cuts and moving backward.
What arguments have you heard from voters skeptical toward school levies?
Well, I really haven’t heard much from skeptical voters this time. I do know, however, that some people are not sure the school district woes of prior years are really over. I hear about problems from five, ten and even more years ago. All I can say is that those problems are in the past. There is a new team leading the district. The work going on in the classroom is, with few exceptions, really quite wonderful.
I confess that it is frustrating for those of us working so hard to change things in the school district to hear the old horror stories from people who assume nothing has changed. I try to be patient because I know it takes a long time for new realities to overcome old perceptions. All I can say is that there IS a new reality at the school district. I hope that former skeptics are ready to listen and learn and begin to trust us.
How do you answer these arguments?
I guess I just did that! (see above)
What do kids need to know to survive and succeed in our world in comparison to other generations?
This is a really important question and gets to one of my frustrations. Some critics of public schools look backward to their own education and what worked fine for them in a simpler time, instead of forward to the very complex future facing today’s students. In addition to the basic skills – reading, writing, math, science – that worked for my generation, students today need access to technology and the know-how to master it; they need to understand how to solve complex problems, how to work in teams, how to ask questions and find answers, how to analyze the world around them. And so much more.
What will happen if the levy fails?
The board and superintendent will begin the process of very, very difficult decisions. Failure surely will lead to layoffs of many teachers, cuts in extracurricular programs, few new textbooks, crippling cuts in the district-wide technology program. It is not a topic we have spent much time thinking about. We expect the levy to pass.
Can or will the board attempt another levy should this one fail?
Quite honestly, we have not discussed this.
Why should retirees or people who do not have children enrolled in school vote yes for the levy?
Pardon me if I get a little sappy about this. I really do believe to my core that each of us has personal civic responsibility for tending to the basic needs of our community. The people who came before us did their share and now it is our turn to do ours. Whether it is for roads, police and fire, parks or schools, we have an obligation to participate as taxpayers. That’s the only way our democracy can thrive.
Give us the state of the Lake Pend Oreille School District 84. Why now should voters trust that their money will be spent wisely?
The State of the District is A+. We have spent the money raised by the 2005 levy exactly as we said we would. We budget levy money by line item so that any taxpayer who wants to check up on us can do so. In recent years, at the advice of our business manager Lisa Hals, we established for the first time a reserve account. Under Lisa’s watchful eye and careful guidance, and now the experienced leadership of Dick Cvitanich the school district is very well managed as well. All staff members are held accountable for doing their job well. The district is required to have an independent audit each year. For the past three years we have received an A+ rating.
What do you say to voters who worry about their tax statements because of past confusion with property assessments?
The confusion about property taxes in Idaho, and especially in Bonner County, has been a frustration for all of us. I am very sympathetic with folks who are trying to make sense of the current situation and project down the road a little. Right now, the most important thing to remember is that the 3 mils the state levied for schools in previous years has been removed from our property tax bill. The state shifted that tax burden to the sales tax last year. Now the only school tax you will see on your tax bill is for this replacement levy.
As for the future, the new county assessor has told us he doesn’t expect the escalating assessments to continue. He projects a 0-5 percent increase this year. Also, the homeowner’s exemption is going up, which will provide additional relief for many.
As a school board member what are your overall goals for our district over the next five years? next ten?
My first goal is to solidify and sustain the gains we are making in district leadership so that five and ten years from now LPOSD is respected and trusted by local taxpayers. My second goal is to provide a quality education that is a source of pride for all residents of the district. My third goal is to pass a facilities bond or levy that will – FINALLY – allow us to address our facility needs.
Questions from other constituents.
I can think of one that people raise quite often when I hear levies being discussed: Why is any taxpayer money going to support extra curricular activities, specifically sports?
If you can, I would suggest to her that she not give the usual pat answer about the well-rounded child and band and art and so forth. Thinking people know those programs receive money but the biggest thing people see in the community is football and 20 coaches lined up and buses transporting these kids and often not school buses but charters they see dollar signs and asked why…. Especially if their child or grandchildren isn’t involved.
* Is Bulldog Bench still a viable organization? Do they raise money any more to support activities? I recall hearing stories of local people sponsoring players or making sure they got home after practice, etc…. I don’t know if these things still happen or not. And I do realize that for years Eva Whitehead lent financial support to many activities.
* I’ll look at the web page and their levy information and come up with some more questions… that one just popped out because I hear it so often.
* We received the “mailer” yesterday or the day before and I just glanced at it…. I tried to read it but the dark-colored backgrounds made it difficult to read so I tossed it. I already know I’m voting for it and my husband is too so I didn’t need to study it.
Ok, no “pat answers” about “the well-rounded child.” Moving all extracurricular expenses to the levy was a board decision. We wanted to keep core academic programs in the general fund and let voters decide whether to continue the robust schedule of extracurricular activities that our students and their families now enjoy. It’s a gamble, but given the high levels of participation and the community support apparent through fundraising beyond school support, I think the answer will be yes.
I’m sorry, but I don’t know the current status of the Bulldog Bench. I do know that various teams and groups – athletic, academic, musical and others – raise money to support their activities beyond what the district provides. I am especially proud of the high school Academic Decathlon teams. Sandpoint High’s team took first in state last year and second this year. Clark Fork placed in the regional competition in its division.
Questions from same person after reading the website: I think we have a good school board now and from what I can tell from reading his articles and listening to him on Bill Litsinger’s show a couple of times, we probably have the best school superintendent we’ve ever had.
Thanks. Re: Superintendent Dick Cvitanich, I agree. We are lucky to have him.
* What is the percentage of graduating students from Sandpoint and Clark Fork High Schools that go to college? What is our district doing to prepare students who don’t go to college to be able to work and afford to stay here?
Board members have been asking this question for several years. Unfortunately, the district has not tracked this information. That tracking is now underway. The district has professional-technical classes for students who don’t plan to go to college. One new opportunity is the Horizon Credit Union branch that just opened at Sandpoint High School. Students will get real-world training and experience as they provide banking service to students and staff.
* Why does Bonner County rank 9th lowest in the state for the amount of our property taxes that goes to schools - $68.50 compared to $310.00 state wide? Is this because of poor management by previous boards and administrations? Can this be changed? If it can, would it reduce the need for special levies? It appears that if we paid a larger share through our property taxes (as most other districts in the state do), we wouldn’t need the special levy.
LPOSD ranks among the lowest in the state in local property taxes for schools because we do not have a plant facility bond or levy. We failed in an attempt to pass a plant facility levy last fall. The last time taxpayers approved a plant facility levy was 20 years ago. The last facilities bond was passed in the 1950s. For whatever reasons -- taxpayer resistance, leadership failures or some combination -- this district has not kept up with its building needs.
Most districts that have a facility bond or levy also routinely run supplemental maintenance and operation levies. If we had a facility bond or levy our replacement levies for basic operations would be less because technology and equipment purchases, including buses, would be paid for out of the facilities measure.
* Without the $2,000,000 in this levy for staffing, where will cuts be made? I read the list but I don’t think many people will be concerned about cuts in extracurricular activities and not having the floors mopped every day.
The major cuts would be in the teaching staff. The result would be larger classes, fewer class choices for high school students, fewer specialized learning opportunities for children at all grade levels.
* Why is the amount for maintenance more than double the amount in the previous levy? Is this for personnel or replacement of equipment (e.g., things like furnaces)?
The maintenance portion of the levy includes $70,000 for a new boiler at Farmin-Stidwell. The major increase is 18 percent more for utilities. This is a combination of rate increases and greater use of facilities, mostly the latter. Also, more of the district maintenance costs are included in the levy this time than in the 2005 levy.
* It appears by your literature that almost 50% of the schools in Idaho rely on special levies for day to day operations and you blame the state legislature for this. This excuse – it’s the state’s fault - has been promoted forever. What is our board doing to change this state-level problem? Isn’t it time you vocally supported candidates who are willing to go against the mainstream and fight for these changes? It appears the ones we keep sending aren’t making any headway. There must be a state-wide organization of school board members. What is that organization doing?
The LPOSD board has become active on two fronts. We are working within the Idaho School Board Association, which lobbies on behalf of school districts at the state legislature. Also, we have begun to meet on a regular basis with our legislative delegation. Our goal is to let them know what our interests and concerns are. Individually, board members contact members of our delegation during the session. I have personally done this on a number of occasions this year. Working in the political trenches is a long, slow process. We have made a start. At least the lawmakers respond to our e-mails now! (Usually.)
* It appears having small schools is creating part of our funding problem. Why hasn’t the district combined schools and closed the small schools and, if necessary, gone to split shifts, 4-day weeks or year round school?
Closing and/or combining schools is the most difficult and disruptive decision any school board can make. I don’t believe we are at the point where that is an option to be considered. Perhaps it will be if this levy fails.
As for double-shifting and 4-day weeks, these are decisions other districts make at a time of crisis. They certainly are not made for the sake of improving student learning. Passing levies is how we avoid a crisis and continue our primary goal of assuring a good education for our children.
Philosophically I am intrigued by year-round schools. I have never heard anyone around here suggest it, however, and my guess is it would not be a popular option, or a cost-saving one.
One last question from a different constituent:
* Ok... here is my question. The explaining part is long.. so will only ask one question And really it is the only question I have. The part I don't understand... is we are coming off of a levy that is 3 million+ ... now they want more money... a million more or close to it... and yet we are told that the census is down quite a bit... With all the new homes that were built and moved in.. all at the cost of $220,000 and way up from there (where $300,000 is common). Wouldn't there be more money coming in to the school coffers? After all, when the old levy was brought in, the houses were valued from $100,000 less than they are now...and there were less of them. Most people could live with the levy being the same price as the old one. So what can you tell me that would change my mind if I wasn't happy with the increase?
Let me break this into two parts. 1. Why more money if there are fewer students? It’s true; our enrollment this year dropped by about 130 students. We project it may drop slightly more, and then level off. When you remove 130 kids from classes across a district of nearly 3,900 students, it makes barely a ripple in individual classrooms. It doesn’t mean you just eliminate a first grade class or a high school math class and the teachers. Also, we are trying to improve instruction, not just hold the line.
The state pays us per student (actually per average daily attendance), but school districts make budgets based on actual costs – salaries, maintenance, curriculum, technology, etc. The job of the board and district administrators is to balance our primary goal of improving student achievement with the reality of declining state (and federal) dollars and taxpayer willingness.
2. You are correct about the impact of growth and escalating property values on the tax rates. Please keep in mind, however, that the state school tax on property has been removed, significantly easing our property tax burden.
Early in the process of developing this levy proposal, the board members agreed we would try to keep the total amount near the current levy. We conducted six public workshops and heard budget realities, including declining revenue from state and federal sources, details of district needs, and views of staff and members of the public. At the end of that process the board was persuaded that to achieve our goal of continuing to improve student learning we would need to ask voters for a larger levy amount.
Even though we cut back on many department requests, we arrived at the $8.96 million levy as the necessary amount to continue our progress. We think it is fair. We know it will be put to good use. I hope you agree.
(I can be contacted directly at mindycameron@earthlink.net).
No comments:
Post a Comment