How Would These Five RUSD Board Candidates Vote on the Referendum?

What is your position on each of the three school referendum questions on the April 5 ballot?

(The questions involve:  an $83.5 million bond issue to construct or remodel a total of 10 buildings, permission to increase spending by $35 million over a seven-year period to maintain existing programs and to hire as many as 60 additional teachers and other staff members; continuation of an earlier referendum to add $1 million annually over 10 years to the district’s general fund balance.)

Dennis Wiser

I think that adding money to the (district’s general) reserves is a good idea. We also need help with operational costs because the (federal) stimulus money (used to cover some staffing and program expenses for two years) is going away.

I think the bond issue portion of the referendum is too big to market. And, I believe that smaller class sizes will not be a cost-effective strategy.

Pamala Handrow

Clearly, we don’t need new buildings to improve education. But, I believe constructing five new schools and remodeling five others will help a great deal. It will provide better efficiency and lower maintenance costs. There will be opportunities for more individual attention through smaller class sizes.

Of course, we can’t staff for those smaller classes without passing the second question.

Finally, having that (general fund) balance of $1 million has put the District in a better financial position, which is needed when we go to borrow money.

Pastor Melvin Hargrove

I voted yes on all three and I’d like to see them pass. But, given the state of what has happened on the part of Gov. Walker and the Legislature, I can see why they wouldn’t pass.

I’m sensitive to the economic plight in our community. But, I have to ask if not now, when?

We still have to deal with the issue of our buildings. The second question helps support teaching and learning, which is extremely important. I believe that maintaining the fund balance is good policy.

Roger Pfost

Regarding the ($83.5 million) bond issue question, I ask why do we more classrooms? I see 78 classrooms, or the equivalent of six more schools, hidden in this. Contractors and trades people are big supporters because they want the work. But, nobody is speaking for the taxpayers.

Most of the buildings can be adequately repaired without building new schools.

Regarding the second question ($35 million in increased spending on staff and programs), if you don’t need the new schools, why do you need the additional teachers? The (Racine) Taxpayers have done research that shows the district already has one educator for every 9.4 students.

I believe there first has to be an audit of the number of students in the district. I’ve never heard an explanation, for example, on why the district sees an increase of 12th grade students from the previous year. It doesn’t make any sense.

When it comes to the $1 million, I don’t understand that once you’ve borrowed money on your books that gets you a better borrowing rate? And, it not made clear whether that balance is really in the district’s general fund and not used for something else.

I’m also unhappy that the School Board is totally a union subsidiary. If they were a private sector company, they’d be sued by their shareholders. I’m not convinced that a (two-year) contract (extension) that was pushed through in just a week doesn’t have a ‘gotcha’ in there someplace.

Patrick Flynn

I’m opposed to all three at this time. Do we need to build new schools to attract people to our community? Yes, but not now.

I’m in favor of taking a step back for a couple of years and really understanding what we need to bring this district forward. As I’ve said, I want to see us slow down and develop a long-term plan. I think we have to develop a budget for every school.

The problem is, people don’t have faith in the administration that money will be spent the way they say it will.