From the Round Table: School system should determine why levy failed before trying again

There may be a thousand and one reasons why the Columbia school levy failed so miserably a fortnight ago, but there’s no question the matter was talked to death. After more than a hundred appearances before every forum imaginable, the superintendent and members of the Columbia Board of Education were clearly at the point of panic, and it was beginning to show. They reached for too much that an amateurish public relations effort simply could not overcome.

They—meaning school superintendent Phyllis Chase and her Board of Seven—tried too hard, and that led to the thunderous defeat of proposed tax levy. A small army of school system sycophants rounded up at the 11th hour often has been able to rescue such tax levy issues in previous elections, but the optimism of passage by a close margin really began to fade weeks ago.

The voters weren’t fooled. Having carefully mulled over each of three financial issues, voters assented to the two sewer bond issues by overwhelming majorities. Implicit in the minds of voters was that these two relatively low-profile agencies are well managed and have been fiscally responsible, over the years, with the funds they receive.

Elections are digital. While we vote to approve or disapprove—for candidates, issues, proposals, referenda and so forth—we never have the opportunity to probe further. With hundreds of conceivable reasons to motivate voters to quash the recent levy issue, wouldn’t we like to know more specifically why this particular issue didn’t make it across the finish line?

My modest proposal for a simple election such as this would be to append a non-binding questionnaire to the ballot. A series of “yes-or-no” questions would assess vexing matters such as the status of the superintendent of schools and the school board itself (both as constituted and regarding the decisions it has made); the controversial math curriculum; school site selection; matters of finance; and whatever else might be worth asking the voters about.

Popular desire for change echoed over to the school board election, in which one member of the ancient régime was tossed out while two newcomers stressing reform and more public accountability were voted in. We’ll see. I’ve heard reformers talk about storming the ramparts of education before, only to fall back and acknowledge that change is gradual and must be measured carefully.

Things will move slowly as the panic to get the levy approved is replaced by a cautious, more reasoned consideration of the issues by the rejuvenated school board. With state funding more or less frozen, local districts such as ours will have to be less flamboyant in their approach to finance. The ambitious 54-cent jump in the property tax levy is just short of spectacular at a time when no one wants to officially admit the economy may be in recession but everyone knows that things have been slowing down.

While there’s a sense of cleansing on the school board, there’s the inevitable question about the future of the superintendent of schools. Sincere, qualified and obviously competent as an administrator, Chase was burdened with making a difficult pitch to voters on relatively short notice. She also was handicapped by what I believe was a lackluster “dog-and-pony-show” public relations campaign.

Chase’s position is probably secure, tempered by a supportive board cautiously watching over its finances through the end of the present fiscal year. While there’s some talk about bringing the levy back to the voters later this year, going through the effort would be a ridiculous waste of time unless we find out specifically why it failed a fortnight ago. Obviously Chase and the board are going to need some help.

School systems routinely hire all sorts of outside “experts,” called consultants, to provide advice and counsel. While I’m just as thrifty as the next person about the frivolous use of hard-earned tax dollars, let me suggest engaging two “experts” of a different genre to advise Chase and the Board of Education.

The first agent would ask members of the public why they voted for or against the recent levy issue, at the same time exploring various nuances of education and how the system is administered. The second agent would handle public relations. I believe the levy would have passed if these two agents had been engaged well before the election. They would have had ample time to do the necessary research and develop a well-honed public-relations campaign that might have convincingly sold us on the issue.