Bonneville Bond

My name is Lary Larson. I am a member of the 2014 Facilities Planning Committee. It was an honor to be invited to serve on the Committee, and it was also an honor to be invited to present to the Board the results of our work. There are many members of the committee who would have loved to be in this position, and would have done a much better job than I. So I appreciate this opportunity.

Our committee was formed in August, 2014 because of over-crowding in the high schools. Six months earlier, the District had submitted a bond proposal to raise $92 million to build a new high school and a new middle school and complete various other projects. That bond was defeated by a vote of roughly 3600 to 2700. 57% of voters opposed the District’s proposal.

Our committee was formed in order to “provide a community voice in developing the best way to solve the problem”. The committee was intended to represent a variety of perspectives regarding this issue. When the committee first met on September 17, it was found that a “good proportion” of those present had opposed the 2014 bond proposal. As the committee continued to meet, I believe it was obvious to all present that all viewpoints were well represented in our deliberations. The committee was not an exact cross-section of the voters, but it was close enough to provide a “community voice” as intended.

The committee’s recommendation, which is that the District should proceed with bonding to build one new high school, is significant for three reasons:

FIRST:

It represents a well-researched, well-informed, thoroughly-debated, and fairly-decided recommendation by a group of reasonable citizens. Let me say a few words about the process we followed, which is briefly explained in our report.

We had excellent support all through the process. We can’t thank enough all the people outside the committee who made this effort possible. Dr. Shackett and the rest of the District administrative staff provided invaluable information and advice. They answered every question with expert knowledge, absolute professionalism, and also what appeared to be total honesty. A number of outside experts were also engaged to provide additional information in specialized areas.

There was no shortage of relevant information. It is safe to say that the information available to the committee far exceeded the level of information that the average voter would ordinarily have in preparation for voting on this issue, without substantial help from the District.

We also can’t thank enough Wendy Green Lowe of P2 Solutions for being our facilitator. Herbert Tree once said, “A committee should consist of three men, two of whom are absent.” Wendy was not allowed to follow that advice. Our committee was NOT formed simply to take 60 voters whose opinions match the results of the last bond election and get their input regarding how to alleviate crowding in the schools. It was formed to take 60 people who have the capacity to forget how they personally voted in the last election, and make them come together with open minds, review all relevant information, speak their opinions, and listen to each other, and hopefully find agreement on the best solution to the problem, without any fist-fights. I believe Wendy accomplished that challenge.

That is not to say that the process was perfect. Otto von Bismarck once said that there are two things that people should never see being made: sausage and laws. Our committee process was a real sausage grinder, in my opinion. Unfortunately, there is only one way to make sausage. And similarly there was only one way for our committee to accomplish what it did, given the constraints placed on us, including limited time, limited attention spans, and limited patience for each other and the process itself. There was no way to avoid some level of occasional confusion, honest disagreement, and plain-old information fatigue. Fortunately, there was one thing that seemed to be in unlimited supply, and that was a sincere desire on the part of each and every member of the committee, in his or her own way, to do what is best for the people we represented: the children, the teachers, the administration, and the taxpayers, all of whose interests don’t necessarily coincide when it comes to these matters. That spirit was very important to our effort.

Therefore, the first significant aspect of our recommendation that I want to emphasize is that, although the process was challenging, the conclusion represents a well-researched, well-informed, thoroughly-debated, and fairly-decided recommendation.

SECOND:

The second thing that I think is significant about our recommendation is that in a very real way the work of our committee could be viewed as a pilot program or a test run for the process of the bond election itself. Our program demonstrated the learning and reasoning process that the average voter should go through when he or she is asked to consider these same issues. When this question was put to the committee, we faced many serious challenges and limitations. Through Wendy’s leadership, we overcame those challenges and limitations. When this question is now put to the voters, they will face the same challenges and limitations. The success of the committee through Wendy’s leadership demonstrates what the Board, through its leadership, can and must do to overcome those same challenges and limitations with the voters.

We started with a rough cross-section of registered voters from the District, with no consensus on how to solve the over-crowding problem, with polar-opposite opinions on the issue, and with broad disagreement on even the basic principles that ought to be taken into consideration on this issue. From that less-than-auspicious beginning, as skeptical and divided as we were, after four meetings and a great deal of interim work by many people (particularly the District staff and P2 Solutions), we were able to arrive at a destination where about 80% of the members of the committee not only approved but recommended a single course of action—to build a new high school. We were not unanimous, but we spoke with sufficient agreement to justify that recommendation.

That is exactly what the District should set its course to accomplish with the voters—to arrive at a destination where 67% or more of the electorate not only approves but recommends a single course of action—to build a new high school. Will it be possible for the District to do that? Our committee success proves that it can be done.

What were the key elements of that success?

1. Open-mindedness and respect for the opinions of others
2. Adequate, accurate, and relevant information
3. Fair and honest advocacy for the solution proposed
4. Time for an understanding of the matter to mature

In the end, although many members of the committee expressed doubt about whether the voters would approve a bond for $63 million for one new high school, many of those same members as well as others expressed confidence that if the voters can be educated on this issue as well as the committee members were, the voters will come to the same conclusion by a sufficient majority. It seems clear that the success of such a bond election will depend on the District using the full range of its unparalleled talents and resources to educate the voters as it does our children, and as it did the committee.

THIRD:

The final aspect of our recommendation that I consider significant is its inclusion of a minority report. I read that portion of the report for the first time this afternoon. I would like to make a suggestion regarding how the District should utilize the minority report. This suggestion is not part of the official committee recommendation.

One of the easiest ways for an honest and conscientious voter to vote against a bond proposal, even if that voter generally understands the issues and IS willing to pay more taxes to solve a real problem, is to be convinced that there are, or may be, other alternatives that would be better solutions to the problem than the project being proposed. A voter with that viewpoint simply doesn’t trust the School Board or the Administration, and he or she is likely to vote no.

In this case, the committee seriously considered 18 distinct ideas as options for solving the over-crowding problem, not all of which involved any new construction. A few of them were almost as well-supported as the option of building a new high school. ALL the other 17 were consciously passed over or ruled out for specific reasons that the committee came to understand through lengthy education and debate. But without such education and debate among the voters, how easy will it be for the voters to not trust the Board, but rather to believe that there are still other viable options that have not been adequately explored by the Committee or the Board?

The minority report touches on that problem. During our meetings, comments were made by a few that other options had not been adequately explored. But that doesn’t mean that any of the options were unfairly ignored or misunderstood by the rest of the committee. We were all able to ask questions, offer comments, and discuss the issues to our satisfaction. Speaking for myself, I believe that I knew and understood enough about all the options to exercise my vote responsibly. I believe that the majority of the committee members felt the same way. I think I can speak for the majority in saying that there is no reason to believe that any option presented to the committee was not given the same fair consideration that all other options were given. And there is no reason to believe that the outcome of the process would be any different if any other option had been highlighted with additional information, explanation or debate.

I urge the Board not to let the existence or substance of the minority report undermine the value of the committee’s recommendation. Rather, the minority report should caution us to be responsive to the concerns raised by the minority. In particular, I would make this final suggestion:

In the information to be provided to the public, the Board should explain, perhaps exhaustively, the reasons why the Committee and the Board rejected each and every other option that was considered and rejected by the Committee. Unless voters are convinced that there are practical, legal, or economic reasons for rejecting each and every other option considered, then they will doubt whether the Board has made the right decision, and that mistrust may give them an easy way out of voting in favor of raising their taxes for this project.

CONCLUSION:

We on the committee were appointed to be a voice of the community on this issue. Many committee members wondered out loud whether our role was to pick the best solution that would likely be approved by the voters, or just pick the best solution. I believe that the 80% who voted to recommend the new high school believe that it will pass when the voters are given to understand the same things that we understood. I believe that our recommendation to the Board therefore represents the will of the voters, assuming they are adequately informed. The Board will need to build their trust.

It also seems clear that the voters will rely entirely upon the Board and the administration for leadership on this issue. When the trained professionals, the experts, try to tell us that the best solution to the problem is to build a new high school, the only way to honestly communicate that information to the voters, for their consideration, is to propose a bond to fund that project, and to thoroughly educate the voters on that issue. If the Board chooses not to make that proposal, then its inaction signals to the community that no real over-crowding problem exists.

If we choose to go forward, then failure is not an option. And if failure is not an option, then hope alone is not a strategy. Success will depend on educating the voters, not hoping that they educate themselves.

That is our recommendation.