By Brian Depew, Lyons Resident
Can also be viewed at burtcountyschool.com
More than 175 people gathered in the Oakland-Craig gymnasium this evening to hear a presentation on the prospects of a Burt County School. The meeting opened with a statement that the meeting was being held to seek the public’s input on possible consolidation ahead of any decisions and that presenters had no planned agenda.
However, the presentation and framing of key questions all leaned heavily in favor of consolidation. Attendees who were members of the Oakland-Craig district were offered handheld clickers that they used to weigh in on a series of questions throughout the evening. For instance, residents were asked “What level of trust to you have in your board to make the right decision for the community.” 40% of those responding with clickers stated they had “full trust” in the board. 60% stated they had either “partial trust” or “no trust” in the board. Not all residents picked up a clicker to vote.
Oakland-Craig Superintendent Joe Peitzmeier reviewed the several-year process the Oakland-Craig district has been involved in including consolidation discussions with Logan View and West Point. Numbers were presented by DA Davidson, the bonding agency hired by the three boards. New bonded debt for the total project is estimated to be $56,370,000. This includes elementary projects in Tekamah and Lyons and demolition costs in all three towns with school facilities.
With absorption of a portion of the Oakland-Craig debt, total debt of a Burt County district would be $61,213,500. Oakland-Craig would retain $2 million of their existing debt, costing Oakland-Craig taxpayers an additional 3.3 cents on their levy above what other district residents would pay. One patron asked each board member to state whether they were in favor of consolidation and why or why not. 7 of the 9 board members gave answers that boiled down to yes. 5 were strong yeses and 2 were slightly hedged. Gus Ray was the only Board member to firmly say he was opposed to consolidation.
He was also the only Board member to offer an alternative articulation of the future for Oakland-Craig throughout the evening. Later two patrons pointed out that the Board had opened the meeting indicating they were there to get public input into how to proceed, but that a majority of them had clearly already made up their mind in favor. The final question the audience was polled on was for options to proceed.
Three choices were offered by Jim French, representative of DLR Group, the architect engaged by the boards to assist with the process. He framed the question on his slide as: (A) Do Nothing (B) Consolidate (C) Other Perhaps sensing a fair amount of skepticism in the room, in reading the question off ahead of the vote, French said, “Voting for consolidation doesn’t necessarily mean you are for it.
It means you want your Board to keep talking to find out more information.” With this framing of the question, a slim majority, or 53% of those voting, indicated their preference was for the Board to continue the discussions. 47% voted for “do nothing” or “other.” Framing the final question of the evening as “do nothing” being offered as the alternative to “consolidate” did not actively offer patrons a chance to vote for other sensible options such as sharing teachers, co-oping activities, sharing classes or curriculum, etc. Patrons interested in such options could vote for “other.”
The meeting adjourned at 9:40pm.
Kat Country Hub 
Recent Comments